|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: WTF is wrong with people | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 327 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
All you did in that post was repeat the usual Evo Credo, nothing that isn't already familiar to us all. Apparently not as you could not see that mutations can cause genetic diversity in a population with a low genetic diversety.
As for the mutations each of us possess individually, I would expect some of them to develop genetic disease. YES by George you got 1 part of it. By this you must also concede that most mutations would do nothing ei not be a hindrance or an advantage right. Now take a look at the picture above the man had a mutation a clump of EXTRA genes on his X chromosome. If there wa an ice age would you consider his mutation to be beneficial? Like helping him not to freeze to death or at least adding an extra proteciton to his face. And given this can you for 5 seconds imagine that his better chance to survive however small increases his chance to have children compared to other people. And His children also bearing the same mutation the same extra genes on their X chromosome would also have a better chance of surviving hence having children of their own with the same mutation. And that is evolution.
Mutations ARE mistakes, as you say, mistakes in the replication of the genome, and also in the bigger sense that they are some kind of disease process in themselves, not part of the normal functioning of the genome. Yes mutations are RANDOM mistakes coupled with NOT-RANDOM natural selection you have evolution. Given the enviorment just about any mutation can be good or bad. The picture above in the current environment is more probably a hindernece to the man to have children and even if he does his children will have the same hindrance too compared to "normal" mutants so his line will probably vanish as will the unique genetic mutation from the human gen pool. But in a different environment he could have an upper hand. Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 327 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
That's just part of the Evo Fantasy. Yea and while evo fantasy is now responsible for making better planes. http://aero.stanford.edu/reports/VKI_Evolutionary_Kroo_A.pdf And you will see this design method being used more and more frequently. Whyt is your fantasy of a magic man poofing everything in to existence doing apart from fighting science and promoting ignorance. Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
Faith writes: Yeah, I enjoy needling evolutionists when I can, just as they needle me Very Christian of you. Guess the Old Testament is your favorite?
Faith writes: And you are off topic and committing the same violation of the rule against personal attack that Ringo was doing You mean when I called you out for being insulting with regards your statement about Coyote's life's work being a delusion? You do know forum rules are not one-sided, right?
Faith writes: The right thing to do with an argument is address the argument itself, but of course evolutionists suffer from an inability to do anything but make charts that demonstrate their fantasies, actual reality eludes them LMAO! Those 'charts', amongst many other things are generally referred to in scientific parlance, as FACTS. Maybe as a counter you can show us the engineering schematics for Noah's Ark, along with all the calculations on how it could function?But I can understand your dislike of charts. The last one I saw produced by a Creationist was drawn in crayon. "Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Golly gee those charts are referred to as FACTS! That sure does set the fantasy in concrete doesn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 327 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
Golly gee those charts are referred to as FACTS! That sure does set the fantasy in concrete doesn't it? Yea and rading an aincent book from the bronze age as FACT is so much better. The reason our charts are refereed as fact is because we take objective measurements via objective tools, and plot the data on charts. If i measure a string wtih a measuring tool every time i measure it the measurement will be the same, if you take the same measuring tool and measure the string the measurement will be the same. The tool is objective. Now if i mesure a bunch of strings and write my findings on a chart. The chart would be factual for the strings i measured. What is objective by your standards. How do you objectively read the bible. There are currently 21000 denominations of Christianity every single denomination reads the bible a bit differently. If you find an objective way to read it you might bring humanity back to the one holy church era.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Science makes planes.
Evo fantasy is not science. Evo makes absolutely nothing, it just keeps people's brains in chains. Hey that rhymes. God taught us science, we thank God for science. Evolution is not science. Anyway. Just a reminder that the reason this discussion got going about how varieties require reduced genetic diversity, which of course you've answered only with the usual recitations of the Evo Litany, is that your OP refuses to recognize that creationists do affirm the variations that occur under the bizarre name Microevolution, meaning that you misrepresent us. Not that you care, heavens no, NOBODY cares about misrepresenting creationists. But anyway, that's why it came up. And I'm sure you'll go on just as blind as ever about what creationists believe, restating the same old lies and putting up stupid "humor" pieces that also restate them. So much for any claim to honest Debate. By the way I hardly ever read links or watch embedded videos, just so you know. In the case of this one I did at least find out that now they think they can improve airplanes with something they attribute to evolutionary theory. Whether whatever it is actually IS attributable to evolutionary theory, or like Microevolution, has nothing to do with it, I didn't read far enough to find out. In any case since the ToE is a gigantic delusion, oh brother and HOW gigantic, I suppose I ought to pay attention to keep track of when they either scrap it or the model they build crashes and burns. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Golly gee those charts are referred to as FACTS! That sure does set the fantasy in concrete doesn't it? Science does its best to speak and write precisely, so as to avoid misunderstanding. If you are going to use scientific terms here in the Science Forum perhaps you should understand what is meant by those terms. Here are some definitions that might help you out: Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws. Note: it is not necessary that you agree with the facts, but unless you can provide evidence that they are inaccurate, that's the way to bet.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There is absolutely nothing about that chart that has any sort of objective anything to it. You are just vaporing on and on the way evos do, with your fantasy evidence and fantasy measurements of fantasy evolution.
As I've tediously explained to you over and over and over, the processes that bring about variation require reduced genetic diversity. THERE's a fact for you, an actual fact. Reduced genetic diversity over many generations of refining a breed is going to bring you to a point where no further variation is possible. Your chart is just a big fairy tale.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Weird how fond you guys are of reciting the Creeds about the Methodology of *Science* as if they actually contribute anything to a particular discussion about how evolution absolutely fails by scientific standards. Just plain weird.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Science makes planes. Evo fantasy is not science. Evo makes absolutely nothing, it just keeps people's brains in chains. Hey that rhymes. God taught us science, we thank God for science. Evolution is not science. Evolution: anything a creationist disagrees with.
By the way I hardly ever read links or watch embedded videos, just so you know. Here is a great one for you to ignore then: Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture): Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 327 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
Science makes planes. Um but the article in question said that evolution can and does make better planes.
Evo fantasy is not science. Um scientists disagree
Evo makes absolutely nothing, it just keeps people's brains in chains. I just showed you an article whre the principle of evolution was used to make a plane better so is that just you closing your eyes covering your ears screaming NANANANANA
God taught us science Um the recognised founder of the scientific method is Aristotle, does that mean the Greeks where right and we should worship Zeus, Athena, Ares .... and all the other phantenon gods.
Anyway. Just a reminder that the reason this discussion got going about how varieties require reduced genetic diversity, which of course you've answered only with the usual recitations of the Evo Litany, is that your OP refuses to recognize that creationists do affirm the variations that occur under the bizarre name Microevolution, meaning that you misrepresent us. Not that you care, heavens no, NOBODY cares about misrepresenting creationists. But anyway, that's why it came up. And I'm sure you'll go on just as blind as ever about what creationists believe. Yea we came full circle where we found out that micro eovlution is just a snapshot of evolution. Or evolution in a shorter framework.
By the way I hardly ever read links or watch embedded videos, just so you know. In the case of this one I did at least find out that now they think they can improve airplanes with something they attribute to evolutionary theory. Whether whatever it is actually IS attributable to evolutionary theory, or like Microevolution, has nothing to do with it, I didn't read far enough to find out. In any case since the ToE is a gigantic delusion, oh brother and HOW gigantic, I suppose I ought to pay attention to keep track of when they either scrap it or the model they build crashes and burns We just came in to an age where computers can harness the power of evolution to design better then man can. But yea keep track you will be amazed how an idiotic non-scientific fairytale does so well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 327 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
As I've tediously explained to you over and over and over, the processes that bring about variation require reduced genetic diversity. THERE's a fact for you, an actual fact. Reduced genetic diversity over many generations of refining a breed is going to bring you to a point where no further variation is possible. Ok once again say we have the absolute lowest genetic diversity possible just 2 freaking creationodogs to start with. When these 2 creationodogs have children say 10 of them. Each of them qill have half a copy of their fathers DNA and their Mothers DNA but ALSO a few MUTATIONS that are DIFFERENT from their fathers DNA or their mothers DNA. GENETIC DIVERSITY of the population INCREASED. Each of these crationodog children will breed further and each of their children will have MUTATIONS in their GENOME further INCREASING GENETIC DIVERSITY.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 327 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
Weird how fond you guys are of reciting the Creeds about the Methodology of *Science* as if they actually contribute anything to a particular discussion about how evolution absolutely fails by scientific standards. Just plain weird.
OK cite what standards it fails and why, then also cite why creationism passes those standards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I just showed you an article whre the principle of evolution was used to make a plane better so is that just you closing your eyes covering your ears screaming NANANANANA Articles purporting to further some evolutionary notion or other are as the sand of the seashore, most with some kind of pretensions to be *Scientific* which usually just means slinging around the jargon. Once one knows the ToE is a gigantic delusion that has millions in chains, what's the point in slogging through another piece of word magic in its name? God taught us science, not Aristotle.
Yea we came full circle where we found out that micro eovlution is just a snapshot of evolution. Or evolution in a shorter framework.
I guess it suits you to ignore the fact that genetic diversity prevents macroevolution, of course, I can't very well expect you to abandon your years of investiment in the Great Delusion for an actual FACT, can I? In any case no you did NOT do any such thing as FIND OUT anything about microevolution, what a bunch of selfserving hooha that is. No, the whole edifice of the ToE was BUILT on the ASSUMPTION that microevolution is openended. The natural variations within species that have always been observed, and that can be controlled in domestic breeding, were Darwin's inspiration for the theory after all. You see variation, you ASSUME it's openended, you declare it, you assert it and that MAKES IT SO in Evospeak. I've shown you how it isn't but gosh that might destroy a hundred years of false science so NOBODY is going to pay any attention to THAT. No, we'll just go on ignoring the naked emperor and describe the perfections of his elegant finery as if they actually exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Ok once again say we have the absolute lowest genetic diversity possible just 2 freaking creationodogs to start with. When these 2 creationodogs have children say 10 of them. Each of them qill have half a copy of their fathers DNA and their Mothers DNA but ALSO a few MUTATIONS that are DIFFERENT from their fathers DNA or their mothers DNA. GENETIC DIVERSITY of the population INCREASED. Each of these crationodog children will breed further and each of their children will have MUTATIONS in their GENOME further INCREASING GENETIC DIVERSITY.
Pay attention now. If you are starting with TWO dogs you have already drastically reduced the genetic diversity from that of the dog population as a whole. Their ten offspring will have THEIR alleles but not some alleles which exist in the greater dog population, probably a great many. Again their genetic diversity is sharply smaller than that of the dog population as a whole, and their offspring will have their parents alleles and not any of the alleles that were left behind in the greater dog population, and these new alleles will come to characterize their family trait picture and in fact a whole breed if such develops from them. That is, if you go on breeding them, keeping them reproductively isolated from other dogs, their particular collection of alleles will continue to mix and create a new set of traits from them, based on their sharply reduced genetic diversity. Of course I believe mutations are a disease process but for the sake of argument I'll assume some occur as you describe. It really wouldn't matter if mutations enter into the mix or not, a few mutations isn't going to increase the genetic diversity of this new population in any real sense, and in any case all it can do is contribute a few more alleles to the mix to create the new breed. If you start with only two dogs you have such a drastically reduced genetic diversity -- it's called Founder Effect, which creates a more drastic genetic reduction than a Bottleneck -- that a few mutations are simply not going to make a difference. If some do occur as you so hopefully assume, they'll just be part of the allele collection of the new breed with its sharply reduced genetic diversity, possibly contribute to a trait or two at best, and most likely in reality, mutations not being so useful or beneficial, they won't have any impact at all. You'll get a new breed from the two dogs over a few generations of inbreeding, and it will have drastically reduced genetic diversity from the mother population mutations or no mutations. It MUST or it will not form an identifiable breed. If mutations kept occurring and changing things as you guys seem to think they do, you could never develop or preserve a breed at all, and that's another way evolution is defeated by the very processes of isolation, selection and so on , that supposedly fuel it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024