|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,907 Year: 4,164/9,624 Month: 1,035/974 Week: 362/286 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What exactly is ID? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Okay than, explain how do those patterns show evolution. And while you're at it, define evolution. quote:None. Which of the words "WHAT" "NUMBER" "DEFINES" "A" "POPULATION" "TO" "BE" "CALLED" "SMALL"? quote:That will be true once when you told me exactly what is wrong with this here article. http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf
quote:That how do you explain the fact that I have no problem understanding anyone else?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:The propellers motion is a subset of catalysing chemicals. How the hell do you think the flagellum get's it's power? quote:Let's go for the third time. Is the informational content the same or not? quote:Well duuuuh!!!? It's 50 proteins! That is the informational content! quote:What does it specify? quote:If it has high probability, than that pattern is not attributed to design but to regularity - i.e. natural law. quote:But in this case Dembski would claim that cars are designed even if they were assembled by machines. Becasue information was needed in the first place to program the machines to construct cars, and to build the machines themselves. quote:Explain why. quote:No, it means small populations wii die out sooner than large populations. Explain to me why exactly would large populations not die from genetic entropy. WHY? Since you are so clueless an illogica, I made yet another picture for you.
People represent the population. Green numbers represent beneficial mutations, red numbers represent deleterious mutation, and black number represent 25 and above mutations which I choose as a threshold for the genetic meltdown. Now, our population starts in Gereation 1, with 2 beneficial and 6 deleterious mutations. The person has his offsprin which inherit 2 beneficial and 6 deleterious mutations. And since DNA replication machinery isn't perfect, they will gain some more beneficial and deleterious mutations. On average there will always be more deleterious ones. Now blue people represent those that get selected for by natural selection. Grey ones that are crossed out do not reproduce. In generation 2. 2 people have reproduced because the had the most beneficial and least deleterious mutations. And they spread both their deleterious and beneficial mutations to their children. So in generation three we have the same thing. Yet now, we have reached those who got 25 or more deleterious mutations which makes their genomes defective enough to cause them to be either still born, or sterile. They obviously do not reproduce anymore. This goes on untill generation 7 when the whole population has suffered a genetic meltdown. Now, what I want you to do is to tell me, HOW EXACTLY IS INCREASEING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE POPULATION GOING TO MAKE THIS EFFECT OG AWAY!!?!?!? HOW!?
quote:No, they don't. They said genetic recombination will SLOW DOWN genetic entropy, and you said that it will HALT IT. Big difference. quote:Wrong. They never said that. quote:I'm not blaming him, I'm blaming you becasue you misrepresent everything.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Great. You do know that this change does not imply or produces common descent of all life as a necessity? quote:I like your definition. It's observable, and it happens. quote:Evolution predict everything, therefore evolution predicts nothing. If evolution can accont for both outcomes (working and vestigial genes which are polar opposites) with the same mechanisms, than it predicts nothing and is useless. If you predicts that tommorow will eitehr rain or will not rain, you have effectively predicted nothing. The same goes for evolution. Genes will either work, or they will be vestigial. This isn't a prediction, it's a copout.
quote:Genetic entropy is what causes defective genes that lose their function. Since biological functions are only transmited by matter, and imperfectly at that, and do not arise by it, ID predicts that biological functions will deteriorate. quote:Basicly you agree with me that the words "small" and "large" are relative when applied to population sizes? quote:Exactly. Because the article claims that it can detect design without knowing all those things you mentioned. quote:True. Which is why the article I linked to, does not do that. It attributes observable patterns to a well known cause called intelligence. quote:Sorry, ID doesn't work liek that. It's about the detection of design, not about it's mechanisms of implementation. A totally different field of investigation should do this job. Just liek evolution does not explain the origin of life. Evolution is not supposed to explain that. Evolution is about how life develops, not how it originates. We have abiogenesis research to tell us about how life originated. The same goes for ID, it does not have to talk about the mechanism of design implementation, just as evolution does not have to account for origin of life. Actually random mutations, naturala selection and common descent could have been the mechanism that design of life got implemented by. But that would be another theory that should deal with that, not ID itself.
quote:True. That is why my article does not do that. quote:Well this is so wrong I don't even know where to start. First of all, you named your source. You said it was a fairy. Obviously you have no evidence for that. ID does not name the designer, becasue it has no evidence for it's identity. Second, ID does not claim teh effects are undetectale. The marks of design are very detectable. They are called specified complexity. And third, ID does not claim that soembody should prove it wrong. It has the burden of proof on itself. That is why we have a method to eliminate design called the Explanatory Filter. First step is to show that a pattern can be attributed to a regularity, which means a natural law. If such a pattern arises by a natural law, than the design hypothesis is falsified. If it is shown that a pattern does not arise by natural law than we go to step 2. Next step is to show that we can account for a pattern by chance. If we can show that, than again, the design hypothesis is falsified. If it can not be shown, than we infer design, as the last resort.
quote:Does this apply to you too?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:What is a "small" and "large" population? Didn't you basicly say in your previous post that it's a relative term? quote:Why is 1000 a "large" population and 10 a "small" population? quote:Oh, so only 1 individual is a "small" population? But above you said that 10 individuals are a "small" population. quote:This is an assumption. Do you have any evidence that natural selection is strong enough to remove all effects of genetic entropy? quote:This would be correct if it was not wrong. Rats have aworking GULO gene that let's them synthesize Vitamin C. Humans, Chimps and Guinea pigs do not. Their GULO gene is defective. Obviously evolution did not weed out that mutation. Therefore, your assertation that natural seelction weeds out ANY negative genetic changes if flawed. quote:If the deleterious mutations keep accumulationg, than obviously it will. quote:It would be to complex and would fit the image size. But it doesn't help you anyway. I assumed that the offsprng inherits both parent's genetic material. The inherit both deleterious and beneficial mutations, and the count of both increases. quote:No, I'm not ASSUMING it, I KNOW it. Parents pass 100% of their genetic material to their offspring. quote:I did it for the sake of simplicity. Do you expect me to draw a million generations? quote:Which are by definition neutral and don't do anything. Actually there are no 100% neutral mutations. The so called slightly deleterious, or almost neutral mutations are the ones that are effectively neutral and can't be weeded out by natural selection. It's becasue their effect is to weak. Therefore, they are the ones that accumulate the most and are causing most of genetic entropy. quote:Again, was I supposed to draw the whole process of DNA transaltion!? DNA duplication does not help you in any way, shape, or form. What do you intend to gain by duplicating genes? quote:Which are possibly the worst argument I heard in my entire life. Your arguments consist of telling me that I did nt draw enough details, and telligen me that I didn't include totally worthless mechanisms that which will either only slow down genetic entropy or won't do anything at all.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Because it takes a lot of time for that to happen. You don't expect them to be dead in 7 generations like in my picture do you?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:It doesn't matter where they are. They are doing their job soemhow and are providing power to the flagellum. quote:So, what's the answer. Please do clarify. quote:Than that would be log2p(10^2954) for the whole flagellum. And if we include Axe's work, than we have log2p(10^2363). quote:Can you specify that structure without observing the event that forms the structure? If not, than it's not a specification. quote:Yes, and we do. And that is why salt crystals are not designed. quote:LOL, no, you ASSUME it's been here for a long time. Care to show me any evidence for that? And even if it was. It would just mean that it takes longer for the meltdown to occur. quote:Name me ONE assumption. quote:Which number exactly do you have problems with? quote:LOL! How in God's name would that help you? For God's sake, it doesn't matter if you evolve wings or infra red vision, or you evolve te ability to run 200 km/h, if you are sterile or still born!!! Obviously those beneficial mutations will be useles if you're dead or you can't pass on your great evolved traits! Please think before you speak!
quote:I wonder who is stupid an illogical for making ZERO valid arguments agains the picture I made. quote:You see? This is the effect of genetic entropy on you. You can't say anything that has any grounding in reason. Of course they are made up! I even said so at the start. I made them like that to demonstrate how genetic entropy leads to genetic meltdown. Did you expect me to make a picture representing 10.000.000 generations? And the best aprt is, you did not explain how a larger population will fix this. Please do. Make a picture or explan how by increasing the population will you make the genetic entropy go away. Go on, do it, or shut up already.
quote:No kidding Einstein!?!?!? quote:Again... SO THE HELL WHAT!? How does that help you? How does that FULLY STOP genetic entropy? It doesn't! It just slows it down, but it doesn't stop it! Even the best offspring have deleterious mutations and they pass them on to their offspring, and the deleterious mutations still accumulate. Which means that the geentic entropy still exists, and at aslower pace is still leading to a genetic meltdown. If you disagree make a new picture that models your magic natural selection at work! Show me how large populations effectively stop ALL genetic entropy! I'm waiting! Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Great, as long as we're clear on that I'm happy. So, can you show me some evidence for common descent now? quote:Oh, I doubt it. quote:What? The beak gene arose later? How do you know that? How do you know the gene was not always there? quote:Oh it's very explainable. It was designed that way. Just because YOU can't see any reason for those genes there, that doesn't mean there IS no reason for them to be there. What bad logic. That's called an argument from incredulity. If the animal changes it's habitat, that the natural ques could affect it, and some genes could be either turned on or off. Which could be the case with chickens today. quote:Yes, I know. It was designed that way. quote:How? quote:Yes it does. If it predicts animasl loosing and animals gaining traits, than it predicts someting and it's polar opposite. It predicts rain and no rain. Therefore, it's useless. quote:No, it wouldn't because evolution predicts everything and also nothing. And that's called convergent evolution. Animals can lose and gain traits. Therefore, chickens could gain and lose an exoskeleton. Just like water animals are supposed to have evolved feet and the ability to live on land, just to have in few million years lose all of that and go back into the water. Which is a case of the whale evolution. quote:It would simply mean that it evolved so much that all genes are different. quote:Based on what logic does evolution predict that? quote:You are the one who believes in witchcraft. You believe people come from rocks. quote:No, it doesn't you funny little man. It shows that genes can be fine tuned when needed by built in genetic machinery. This is what is known as natural genetic engineering. You see, living organisms have build in mechanisms like transposons that will be turend on on certain ques and will modify the genes to fit it's environment. quote:As you can clearly see here, this particular trait does not evolve by random mutations and natural selection. It is turned on on an environmental que. And can be gained whenever the bacteria needs it. It happens in mere 9 days. The adaptation of bacteria to feeding on nylon waste - creation.com
quote:Nope. Wrong again. quote:You see, all the mutation have been degenerations of already existing genes. No new functions were evoved. http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O
quote:And again. A supposed new function is not a new function at all. The bacteria have had ALL the machinery the needed to perform a certain function. In this case the the ability to utilize citrate as a food source in the presence of oxygen. Nothing new has evolved. A simple gene has only been needed to be tweaked a bit, to get expressed a bit more, and it allowed the bacteria to utilize citrate while oxygen is present. The machinery to do that was already there. it did not evolve. This is a great example of fine-tuning, not of evolution by random mutations and natural seelction. quote:Please explan how does fossile record give you any evidence agains ID? Or for evolution? quote:Show me one which has been shown to be wrong. quote:You keep asserting I'm wrong. But you dont' actually show it. quote:Thanks. Than you do understand that you can't tell that only "small" populations will die because of geentic entropy, becasue they are "small" only in relative terms. And you also can't say that "large" populations will not suffer from genetic entropy, becasue they being "large" is also relative. quote:Explain why. quote:Wrong. By the use of the explanatory filter we come to the conclusion that Mount Fuji is best explained by natural laws. quote:Let me show you how painfully illogical this argument is by turning it against you... If you can't show how life originated by evolution, than evolution is a useless theory and should be discarded! See?
quote:There is nothing to concede except that the point is stupid. quote:In other words it's not supposed to explain the origin of life. In the same manner ID does not have to explain the mechanism of how the design got implemented. quote:Maybe evolution is makebelive because it can't exlain teh origin of life? quote:I'm asking you the same question. Is it possible that evolution can't explain the origin of life becasue evolution is a big fat lie? quote:What functions are you talking about? quote:Hmm... let's see. The Design Inference - 272 pages about design detection.No Free Lunch - 432 pages of how to detect design Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence - 41 pages on how to detect design. I suggest you start reading.
quote:Maybe, maybe I could. Some things are designed but it's design isn't detectable. But some things are designed any are very well detectable. Just like the Rosetta stone. Do you disagree that it was designed? quote:Naw... "Intelligent" is an adjective. quote:If I treat a rock like a noun am I calling it a being? quote:Oh I see. So before people could detect radio waves, they were also make believe? quote:You shouldn't call him that becasue that's not what I'm arguing for. When you go and argue with Dembski, than please do use that name. quote:No, becasue a.) Intelligence is not magic, unless you are claiming it does not exist, than that means you are not intelligent and your arguments are also not intelligent or reasonable, because you have no intelligence to create reasonable arguments. b.) natural selection and random mutations alone can not produce the complexity of life we see today. So they are obviously not enough. Intelligence had to be involved. And c.) I think there is no evidence that natural selection and random mutations were the mechanisms which implemented the design so I disregard them.
quote:Becasue natural law is enough to explain gravity and all those effects. People coming from rocks in a span of 4.6 billion years is not. quote:Nope. He said that he believes it's God whi is the designer. But points out that that conclusion does not follow from the evidence that ID presents. It's simply his own belief. quote:I can accept his math without accepting his theology. quote:On the contrarry. The Design Inference - 272 pages about design detection.No Free Lunch - 432 pages of how to detect design Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence - 41 pages on how to detect design. Start reading.
quote:I never said that. quote:Than what am I doing? quote:Why should I care? I'm not talking about Behe now. quote:Where did I infer it incorrectly? Show me one case? quote:That is an experiment. Using the Explanatory filter is an experiment. quote:The Design Inference - 272 pages about design detection. No Free Lunch - 432 pages of how to detect design Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence - 41 pages on how to detect design. Start reading. Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Thanks. Than you do understand that you can't tell that only "small" populations will die because of geentic entropy, becasue they are "small" only in relative terms. And you also can't say that "large" populations will not suffer from genetic entropy, becasue they being "large" is also relative. quote:But to "1000000000000000" "1000" is a small population. So it's all relative. quote:And I want you to understand that if you claim that a population is only small in relative terms, than you can't pick some random population, claim it's "large" and that it does not get affected by genetic entropy. quote:What about the deleterious mutations in those individuals that do reproduce? quote:Obviously it isn't. The DEFECTIVE GULO genes are the ones that are negative. Yet natural selection did not remove them. Why? quote:The only difference is that they DO accumulate. I already gave links to two articles that show that! quote:Wait it's a failure on my part that I didn't draw 10.000.000 generations? What drugs are you on? quote:Wrong. I never said it will have multiple mutations. It will only inherit those beneficial and deleterious mutations that it's parents had. BUT!!! He will also gain more mutations of his own, this increasing the cound of both deleterious and beneficial mutations. Which means they do accumulate. quote:I know that. I said it gets PASSED ON 100% from the parent. Later on it gets recombined. But on average, the mutations do accumulate even with this mechanisms that slows down the accumulation. quote:First of all, this is an assumption. This has never been observed. Second, it doesn't help you because it doesn't remove the deleterious mutations from the genome. An organism will not care if it evolved new function if the effects of genetic entropy made it sterile. quote:No, because your arguments were that I was not detailed wnough, which is stupid. Please you draw a picture that represents 10 million generations. quote:I have no Idea. I know that I never made that argument. And I know I'm not making it because I'm not a Christian. So now what?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:No problem. We'll deal with it later on. quote:What does thatz have to do with chickens? Are you by any chance claiming that these supposed "proto-avians" are related to modern day chickens? Do you have any evidence for that? quote:I'm sorry but we must go into full detail because your whole theory is built on assumptions and logical fallacies right at it's foundations. And I just want you to realize that. quote:Yes, those that are produced by genetic duplication. quote:ID predicts that if the genomes are designed, that it will contain high amount of CSI. quote:You seem to be incredibly clueless about genetics. Here, take a look, the mechanisms is a very well known one. It's called a transposon. Why do you think you have any right to even address me if you are clueless about such basic stuff? Transposable element - Wikipedia
quote:Who claimed that? quote:I didn't say spontaneously. With time, it could have gained and lost, and gained, and lost, and gaine, and lost and gaine, and lost ... ... an exoskeleton. And there would be no problem for evolution to account for that, because it can account for everything. quote:Again, you are building a strawman. I never said suddenly. I said, through time. quote:Really? Well, name one possible falsification. quote:That's true. And that's why I'm not arguing for that. quote:It suggests because we already know, for a fact that it has already happened that way in another experiment. Therefore, the best explanation is that it happened that way here also. quote:I'm waiting. Please start explaining the fossil record. quote:I tend to think that you are the liar here. Since I do not think you have read any of his books. I on the other hand did, and I don't remember him saying that God is the designer. Unless he was asked in an interview of who he believes the designer is, he would state that he believes it's God. But he would also point out that that's just his own belief, that has nothing to do with ID itself. quote:Oh, really? Why don't you start reading NFL, you would be surprised. quote:Tautology anyone? quote:Well if that is so you have just blured the line between beneficial and deleterious mutations. Which means that even if mutations are beenficial they still destroy biologic functions. Not only that, but since they are beneficial, they will get passed on to the next geenration, and this will only speed up the process of genetic entropy. quote:Why are you such a filthy liar? I never claimed that. I said with time, populations will deteriorate. Did my picture show a sudden genetic meltdown, or did it happen gradually? Obviously it happened gradually. And the evidence for that exists. Populations die out pecause of genetic meltdown. quote:Again, that doesn't change the picture. Yes, sexual recombination is helpful. I mean that's obvious. But so what? It doesn't stop the degradation in any way! Yes, it does slow it down, becasue for instance, one parent can have a deleterious mutation, and the other parent not. When they have children, the child can inherit the gene that does not have the deleterious mutation. And yes, that helps. But thell me, how the hell is that going to help you when ALL individuals have this mutation? You do understand that the child will inherit teh gene from either parent, but it will still inherit the non-functional gene since both parent's genes are defective. Like in teh case of the GULO gene in humans. No amount of sexual recombination is going to help you here because whichever gene the child inherits is defective. 100% of people on Earth have this defective gene. So to conclude this part. Yes, sexual recombination slows down genetic entropy, but it does not stop it.
quote:So you are saying that in real world, ALL deleterious mutations from parents magicaly get weeded out before they are passed on to their children? Explain how. quote:I could ask you teh same thing. Do you pray to Darwin every night?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Nope, because the Moon and the book are different objects. If somebody said that gravity explained why books fall down, and why sometimes books would not fall down if released, witht eh same mechanism, now that would be a cop out.
quote:I do understand it, thank you for your concern anyway.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Fine. Start explaining. How do they only make sense in light of evolution. quote:I do need a definition from everyone because everyone has a different definition. quote:A population is small if it is small? Wow, Einstein, did you graduate at the University of Tautology? quote:Okay, now tell me, why do you think this will have any effect of stoping the genetic meltdown at any future point in time when we know that all individuals are mutants? quote:Evolution is an algorithm. It does not produce any CSI. It only transmits it. Let me show you a mathematical proof for that, right out of NFL. First we have a CSI j, and a detrministic natural law denoted by f. Natural laws are described as functions. Simply because they act on a certain variable, and than give the same result every time. Just like 2X + 10 = 20. X will always be 5. In the same way, when you put water under 0C, you will always get ice. So now, you are claiming that this natural law "f", brought about CSI "j", without intelligent cause. That means that there was some element "i" in the domain of "f", that was acted upon by "f" and it brought upon "j". This is represented by the equation => "f(i) = j" This actually does not create new information, since "i" will always produce "j" when acted upon by "f". This simply means that the natural law has shifted the same amount of information from "i" to "j". The problem of where did the CSI come from is not resolved by this. Simply because we have to ask where did CSI in "i" come from? Because that is the same CSI as in "j". It just got shifted around by "f" acting upon it. Now we have this equation: "I(A&B) = I(A) + I(B|A)", let's call it "*". It explains that information in an event A and B equal information in the event A together with information B given that A is certain. Which basicly means that if A happens, B is sure to happen. Therefore, if we see that A happened, that means B happened too. Let us now use this equation in our example. Since we already know that "i" fully determines "j", with respect to "f", that means that "I(j|i) = 0". This means that if know all the information in "i", we will also know all the information in "j", when "f" acts upon "i". Which means that if "i" happens, "j" also happens, and whatever we learn from "i" we also learn from "j". And this means that we can learn nothing more from "j" than from "i". Meaning, information gained is equal to zero. Which means that CSI that was generated is not created by a natural law, it was simply shifted from some other place. All natural laws act like this. Therefore natural laws are precluded from creating CSI. They can only shift them around.
quote:Well we do have that. It's called the Explanatory Filter. And we also have a reliable mark of intelligence which is CSI, which can not be produced by an evolutionary algorithm. quote:Than how do you explain this. Accumulation of Deleterious Mutations in Small Abiotic Populations of RNA - PMCJust a moment... Just a moment...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Believe it. quote:Great. And I'm not asking that evolution should produce anything else. If that is the theory of evolution, than that's fine by me. In the same way, ID offers to detect design in patterns we observe in nature. For that it has a method called an explanatory filter, and a measure of the pattern that we should find if a pattern is designed called CSI. And it offeres the source for those patterns to be an intelligence. quote:Great! I agree with that. The same goes for ID. It does not have to explain the mechanism of design because: 1.) It claims that design is detectable without knowing the mechanism.2.) That mechanism can not be reliably infered just by detecting design. quote:I agreee. In the same way, since design has for a logical neccessity a designer, and a mechanism that implemented that design, ID does not try to name the identity of the designer, or the mechanism. quote:Wrong. ID can not be in any way, shape or form the replacement for evolution. If evolution is concerned with change of species over time, than ID has nothing to say about that. ID is the science of design detection only. And is not supposed to replace evolution. ID and evolution can coexist. quote:Wrong, again it's not. It has nothing to do with how speciation occures. People can accept both evolution and ID liek Michael Behe does. You are building a strawman argument here. quote:Which it doesn't have to offer because a.) I already explain why it doesn't have to offer that. And b.) You only assumed it is trying to replace evolution. Which is where you were wrong, and this conclusion is likewise wrong. quote:Becasue they are not supposed to. quote:Ok, so let's turn this stupid argument agains you nce more. Untill evolution offers us an explanation for origin of life, there is nothing to discuss.
quote:And untill you have evidence evolution is responsible for the origin of life, that I will simply consider you nothing but a Darwin worshiper.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:I never said they do. But the flagellum is powered by something. quote:That's wrong. So you are saying that If I write a book of 20 pages by hand, or if I write the same book by a computer, and than print it out, that the informational content of those books are not identical? quote:Of course it is, because the structure is what is important. quote:No it's not. A fabrication is something that is just read of the event that exhibits a patternt. A specification is when a pattern can be described without first looking at that event. We can describe a "bi-drectional rotary propeller motor" without looking at the flagellum first. Therefore, it's a specification. quote:Explain how. quote:Than describe the snowflake. What is it's pattern called. quote:No, your point is that I was supposed to say that they were designed. quote:Show me that evidence. quote:Do fossils come with dates attached to them? quote:If it's going to happen than it's a problem. quote:Explain how does the effect of beneficial mutation counter the effect of deleterious mutation when an individual is either sterile or stillborn. quote:I used those numbers to show in as few generations as possible the effects of genetic entropy. Tell me, what would ahve changed if I set the rate of mutations to 5 per generation, and the threshold to genetic meltdown to 5000 deleterious mutations. What would change EXCEPT the numbers of generations that would ahve to pass untill teh geentic meltdown occures? quote:And again, I ask you, how does the effect of beneficial mutation counter the effect of deleterious mutation when an individual is either sterile or stillborn. quote:And once more, what would ahve changed if I set the rate of mutations to 5 per generation, and the threshold to genetic meltdown to 5000 deleterious mutations. What would change EXCEPT the numbers of generations that would ahve to pass untill teh geentic meltdown occures? quote:And for the third time, how does the effect of beneficial mutation counter the effect of deleterious mutation when an individual is either sterile or stillborn. quote:The same thing happens as in my diagram. Only in more generations. quote:No they won't. You arte simply asserting this. How would they disappear if the parents pass them on to their offspring. quote:No, they wouldn't. Becasue a parent passes on both deleterious and beneficial mutations to it's offspring. quote:Which is an observed fact. Accumulation of Deleterious Mutations in Small Abiotic Populations of RNA - PMCJust a moment... Just a moment... quote:Where is your evidence for that statement? quote:Where is the evidence for that? quote:No, becasue they inherit their parent's deleterious mutations and add their own.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:I don't know how much it needs. But it's a logical conclusion. quote:It has. It affects all life. But like I said, a long time is needed for the actual meltdown to occure.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:I totally agree with you. That is why the experiments that show genetic entropy, trump any notions of evolution. quote:Yes, we do. We see them in ALL species. quote:No. We do not know how much mutations would they have accumulated. To predict real numbers is not possible, simply because we do not know what was the initial population size.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024