|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Regretfully I am recusing myself from discussion in this thread and taking on a moderator role beginning tomorrow morning. Please keep your focus on the topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
How is this a fair comment at all? Where are the bible quotes? If someone questions the viability of evolution, the automatic throwback position is that its a bible argument? That's a quite fair question. The answer is no, questioning evolution is not automatically a Bible argument. However, an argument consisting of simple assertion that evolution and mutations cannot produce change that crosses baramin boundaries is a Bible based argument. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And while of course the Bible underlies my interest in pursuing this line of reasoning, I'm using ONLY what I've learned from EVOLUTIONIST SCIENCE in the actual argument itself. Change in gene frequencies, effect of reproductive isolation, effect of small population isolation. Also other scientific facts such as how the mere selection of desired traits by breeders generation after generation leads to new breeds with or without mutation.
ABE Edited to remove heated remarks. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10081 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Oh that is a TERRIBLE misrepresentation. I've done a lot more than merely assert this, I've walked you through all the reasoning that leads to this conclusion time after time after time. I have not seen this reasoning. Could you point me to the post in this thread where this reasoning can be found?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Then why do your conclusions differ from those of the evolutionist scientists themselves?
... I'm using ONLY what I've learned from EVOLUTIONIST SCIENCE in the actual argument itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Because I interpret the facts from within a different explanatory system. Paradigm clash.
Or simply: Because their conclusions are wrong. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Because I interpret the facts from within a different explanatory system. Paradigm clash. Or simply: Because their conclusions are wrong. Or because you are trying to shoehorn biological diversity into your biblical timeline?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10081 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Because I interpret the facts from within a different explanatory system. Thus far, you seem to be making stuff up on the fly without any reference to any facts. That doesn't seem to be a very good explanatory system. You claim that further mutations can not produce a new kind or baramin, but you have yet to show any evidence to back this claim.
Or simply: Because their conclusions are wrong. Where did you demonstrate that their conclusions were wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Then why do you have to speculate that all mutations are deleterious when tens of thousands of biologists and geneticists have shown otherwise?
Why do you insist that new alleles cannot enter a population when tens of thousands of biologists and geneticists have shown otherwise? How do breeders make new lineages and yet find no trace of these prior existing alleles in the parent populations? Why do you insist that mutations in growing populations cannot increase genetic diversity when tens of thousands of biologists and geneticists have shown otherwise? Why do you have to invent baramins as separate creations with no common ancestry when tens of thousands of biologists and geneticists have shown otherwise? Why do you have to speculate on some past super-genome when tens of thousands of biologists and geneticists have shown otherwise? By the way, when did this super-genome come into being? Some 6000 years ago at the biblical creation, yes? The logic you use here and on your blog begins with your conclusions to fit diversity into the biblical time line. When you work backward from the present, every time you encounter an obstacle that leads away from the biblical time line, you have to invent some mechanism (baramins, bad mutations, no new alleles, super-genomes) to bring the path back on line with the conclusions you have already chosen. And this chosen conclusion is that biblical genesis is True. So, yes, Faith, in answer to ringo's question, you are trying to shoehorn biological diversity into your biblical time line. Edited by AZPaul3, : mechaniks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Something to consider, Faith:
There are about 7 billion people on this planet. Assuming an average life span of 80 years and assuming that about 20 years defines a human generation there are about 1,750,000,000 people in each of humanity's 4 present living generations. The latest study that I have seen shows about 30-50 genetic mutations in each child's genome that were not present in either of the parents genomes. This is done, by the way, by having the mutations alter the parent's genome in the germ line (reproductive) cells. Each of mom's eggs and each of dad's sperm are not exact faithful copies of their genes. Each mutation is a unique change to one of that parent's genes somewhere in their genome. So right now there are about 210 billion genetic mutations in the human genome that were not there 80 years ago. And each additional generation adds another 52 billion more mutations to the mix. That's about 2,600,000,000 new mutations entering the human genome each year. Humans the world over are notorious for getting it on with whoever, whenever, all over the globe. The mixing and re-mixing of these mutations takes place in child after child. Since not all humans are dead, incapacitated, deformed and sterile then the majority of these mutations in the present world population cannot be deleterious. These are facts. We know this data for the reality it is. We have been there, we have seen it. Can you really tell us that this constant infusion of altered genes, by the billions each year, does not increase genetic diversity in the human genome? Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Given that no moderation issues have arisen I'll make a brief comment about this:
AZPaul3 writes: How do breeders make new lineages and yet find no trace of these prior existing alleles in the parent populations? Advantageous mutations occur only very rarely in the small populations that breeders can handle. Advantageous mutations *do* happen but cannot be depended upon. Breeders rely almost exclusively upon selecting desired features for breeding. Faith is correct that in general breeding programs reduce diversity. In the plant world hybridization is a way of introducing new alleles and genes. Well, new to the plant receiving them. And in the animal world breeders can cross-breed between species, or mix in non-pure breds to add diversity. But mutations play an extremely minor role in breeding programs. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I've done a lot more than merely assert this, I've walked you through all the reasoning that leads to this conclusion time after time after time. Most of my posts bring out the logic that leads to this conclusion. Point to a post that provides a reason why mutations cannot introduce the diversity needed to produce baramin crossing evolution. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
None of that has been SHOWN by the biologists, it's all BELIEVED ON FAITH and accepted on authority. Whenever a new trait emerges they call it a mutation. In most cases they don't KNOW that it's a mutation, it's just that their theory tells them it is.
What actually happens in reality is that the processes of evolution come to an end by running out of genetic possibilities. In REALITY. This is demonstrated in breeding and it is demonstrated all the time in the wild where conservationists are concerned about species endangered by genetic depletion. You CLAIM that mutations keep adding diversity so that this doesn't normally happen but you do not KNOW that. You know that there ARE mutations but you don't know what they actually DO in the population. Again it's an article of faith based on your theory telling you that's what has to happen. The other paradigm is that the existing genotype is quite sufficient to provide all the diversity needed for new phenotypes to emerge through many population splits, each new reduction in numbers reducing the genetic diversity until eventually if the splitting keeps continuing you arrive at speciation and inability to further evolve new varieties. The only way I can think of that my paradigm could be proved is if the DNA could be sampled from a sequence of populations to show this reduced diversity. Meanwhile you have no proof for your paradigm either, all you have is a consensus of belief. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Advantageous mutations occur only very rarely in the small populations that breeders can handle. Breeders rely almost exclusively upon selecting desired features for breeding. Faith is correct that in general breeding programs reduce diversity.
And so it is. Well, I suppose she can't be wrong about everything just like I can't be right about everything.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024