Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 16 of 259 (770707)
10-13-2015 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
10-13-2015 2:11 AM


Re: Numbers of mutatons are irrelevant
Yes it's a failure of understanding; you just don't get it, so I refer you back to the post --Message 7 --as I said I would. I don't know if I'll try to deal with anything else in your post since it's all just the usual claims I've answered a thousand times. Except this one statement:
And again I will repeat a point made long ago. Once a new species has formed what is to stop it gaining new variations ?
The lack of genetic diversity. Duh.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 10-13-2015 2:11 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 10-13-2015 8:52 AM Faith has replied
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2015 4:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 17 of 259 (770708)
10-13-2015 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
10-13-2015 8:37 AM


Re: Numbers of mutatons are irrelevant
quote:
Yes it's a failure of understanding; you just don't get it, so I refer you back to the post as I said I would. I don't know if I'll try to deal with anything else in your post since it's all just the usual claims I've answered a thousand times. Except this one statement:
Completely untrue. i understand the argument fine. It's just that you have not and obviously cannot answer the objections.
Most importantly, how do new variation, added by mutation interfere in the production of sub-species and new species ? You keep refusing to answer. If YOU understand it, why can't you give any explanation ? I'Ve given reasons why it won't and you just keep on making the same claim.
quote:
The lack of genetic diversity. Duh.
So you think that your assumed "lack of genetic diversity" somehow stops mutations adding to genetic diversity. How can even you believe that ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 8:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 1:23 PM PaulK has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 18 of 259 (770710)
10-13-2015 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
10-12-2015 11:45 PM


Re: Numbers of mutatons are irrelevant
Nope, as I just laboriously proved
You argued for your position. You offered no real-word evidence or reference to any or indeed any connection to anything but your own uninformed opinion.
As usual.
That's not proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 10-12-2015 11:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 19 of 259 (770713)
10-13-2015 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by 14174dm
10-12-2015 10:25 PM


Re: If true, how would the founder look?
Instead of arguing about things from the evolutionary side, shouldn't we be examining the predictions to be made based on Faith's proposal? The search for falsification or confirmation based on prediction & evidence?
Yes, that might be a good way to proceed. And if this were not at least the fifth time around for the exact same discussion with the exact same nonsense arguments and made up genetics, you would see posters with quite a bit more patience. Faith claims that only she knows how genetics really works. She explains her lack of evidence for her positions as the result of real scientists being blinded by their love for the theory of evolution. If you disagree with Faith, you are just going to be told that you don't understand her position.
There are already threads open with large amounts of discussion on this topic. Why in the world we needed yet another one instead of just having Faith pick up from one of the threads where Faith has been confronted with the details, evidence, and even examples needs to be explained. All starting from scratch does is allow lying about previous discussions.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by 14174dm, posted 10-12-2015 10:25 PM 14174dm has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 20 of 259 (770714)
10-13-2015 9:53 AM


No lack of evidence
Evidence: loss of genetic diversity necessary to getting pure breeds. It used to be considered the definition of a pure breed that it had many fixed loci for its main characteristics. That condition has been recognized as leading to ill health so they no longer breed for fixed loci, but it remains the definition nevertheless. (The loss of genetic diversity occurs only where breeding is going on and a new phenotype is being developed. The rest of the population of, say, dogs, has plenty of genetic diversity among them all. This loss of genetic diversity is the product of evolution so it only occurs where evolution is occurring. It's the very processes of evolution that ultimately issue in genetic depletion down the particular line that is evolving, thus ultimately bringing to an end further ability to vary or evolve in that line.)
Evidence: loss of genetic diversity result of population splits in the wild. (In the wild this is how new subspecies developed too, and spread out into many different geographic locations. Here too each new subspecies is the result of reduced genetic diversity which is necessary to bringing out new phenotypes. And here too ultimately, if daughter populations kept on forming from daughter populations the loss of genetic diversity would ultimately prevent further variation or evolution in that line too. The rest of the species could still have lots of genetic diversity. It's in the evolving line where it is lost. Evolution leads to loss of genetic diversity and ultimately inability to evolve further: Evolution defeats evolution. It can't happen beyond the point where the genetic fuel runs out. This is the natural end to which evolution always leads. You can start an infinite number of lines of evolution but if you continue to isolate new lines you will ultimately reach the point beyond which no further evolution is possible. There is no way to get from a reptile to a mammal: the reptile can only vary within its own genome and if it goes through many splits in reproductive isolation it will eventually produce some interesting variations on reptileness but also reach the point where it can't evolve further.
Evidence: You can't get new phenotypes unless you get rid of alleles for other phenotypes. Breeders know this, it's the reason for preserving strict reproductive isolation.
Evidence: Cheetah, unique cat with fixed loci, which is the end result of loss of genetic diversity in the formation of new species. It could be created by one drastic bottleneck or it could be created by a series of population splits occurring from each former daughter population.
Evidence: Pod Mrcaru lizards whose large heads and new digestive system formed within thirty years of reproductive isolation on an island where they had been released. Evidence of what happens by reproductive isolation alone over a short period of time. We can assume drastically reduced genetic diversity from the simple fact that only five pairs of lizards were the founding population. It's possible this population has run out of genetic diversity for further evolution. The only way to find out for sure would be to take another set of pairs out of this new population and isolate them on another island.
Evidence: Jutland cattle evolved four different races or species by reproductive isolation alone over a very short period of time. Evolution works fast. It creates new subspecies by eliminating the alleles for other phenotypes. The four different subspecies of cattle in this case may still possess sufficient genetic diversity for further evolution. or they may not.
This is how evolution works. It works by reproductive isolation of a portion of the alleles that exist in a species. This is how you get new subspecies that differ phenotypically from other populations of the same species. Each separated reproductively isolated population forms because of its reduced genetic diversity. Reduced genetic diversity is essential to evolution of new subspecies, but it also leads to a condition beyond which no further evolution is possible for lack of the very genetic diversity that makes evolution possible.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by JonF, posted 10-13-2015 11:48 AM Faith has replied
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-13-2015 11:51 AM Faith has replied
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2015 4:54 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 105 by Taq, posted 10-15-2015 5:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(3)
Message 21 of 259 (770715)
10-13-2015 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
10-11-2015 6:33 PM


Hi, Faith.
It’s been awhile* since the last time you and I debated (Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and ZenMonkey Only)), and I’m a bit disheartened to see that nothing has changed since then.
*Five years already! Holy crap! I’ve had a second child, gotten my Ph.D., and completed a postdoc since then!
I wanted to respond to a specific point you raised, and I’d actually like to respond to it using your own words from our last debate.
Remember this:
Faith writes:
Thanks for the example and I see that a useful allele was created from the point of view of the bacterium. But again, since the vast majority of mutations are not useful, and since you haven't a single one in human beings despite many opportunities to find one if it ever occurred, I'm still going to refuse to accept this
In any case I am now going to reject this example even though you proved your point, because I see where mutations are merely assumed by evolutionists in the preponderance of cases where there is no need for any mutations at all to explain the phenotype, and I see this more strongly because of what you've written than I did before...
Source: Message 49
The example I had provided was from Hallet and Maxwell 1991 (see my post Message 47 for a quick overview of the salient details).
And now, five and a half years later, you write this in your opening post:
Faith writes:
mutation, if it did create viable alleles as is claimed, and there is no evidence that it does
There was a brief moment, back in April 2010, where you really showed your colors: you admitted that evidence for beneficial alleles exists, but you decided to reject it anyway because all other mutations reported by evolutionists were just "assumptions" (despite the discussion I had provided upthread about the difference between "assumption" and "conclusion"). I remember how proud I felt that I was the one who had actually gotten you to admit that beneficial mutations exist, even if it ultimately proved to just be a momentary blip on your radar that you’ve apparently completely forgotten about. I’m sad, because I still look back on that debate with a lot of fondness, even though I still get a little twitch in my eye when I read the parts where my arrogance was showing.
Ah well: it’s a long journey for all of us, isn’t it? I just wish I had been able to have a bigger impact on where your road was taking you than what I apparently have.
Oh, and I never got that cookie you offered, either.
Edited by Blue Jay, : Fix date
Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.
Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 10-11-2015 6:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Tangle, posted 10-13-2015 11:28 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 1:20 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 22 of 259 (770716)
10-13-2015 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Blue Jay
10-13-2015 11:16 AM


Whole list of beneficial human mutations here:
4 beneficial evolutionary mutations that humans are undergoing right now - Big Think

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 10-13-2015 11:16 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 1:28 PM Tangle has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 23 of 259 (770718)
10-13-2015 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
10-13-2015 9:53 AM


Re: No lack of evidence
Evidence: loss of genetic diversity necessary to getting pure breeds.
In your opinion. {citation required for the loss being necessary; that's what you are trying to prove.}
Evidence: loss of genetic diversity result of population splits in the wild.
In your opinion. {citation required; let's see the data.}
Evidence: You can't get new phenotypes unless you get rid of alleles for other phenotypes
In your opinion. {citation required}
Evidence: Cheetah, unique cat with fixed loci, which is the end result of loss of genetic diversity in the formation of new species. It could be created by one drastic bottleneck or it could be created by a series of population splits occurring from each former daughter population.
In your opinion. {citation or data or explanation required for "could be created"}
Evidence: Pod Mrcaru lizards whose large heads and new digestive system formed within thirty years of reproductive isolation on an island where they had been released. Evidence of what happens by reproductive isolation alone over a short period of time. We can assume drastically reduced genetic diversity from the simple fact that only five pairs of lizards were the founding population.
In your opinion. {citation required}
Evidence: Jutland cattle evolved four different races or species by reproductive isolation alone over a very short period of time. Evolution works fast. It creates new subspecies by eliminating the alleles for other phenotypes. The four different subspecies of cattle in this case may still possess sufficient genetic diversity for further evolution. or they may not.
In your opinion. {citation required}
SO far it's just unsupported claims. Of course you cannot produce anything more than that.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 9:53 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 9:07 PM JonF has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 24 of 259 (770719)
10-13-2015 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
10-13-2015 9:53 AM


Re: No lack of evidence
Evidence: loss of genetic diversity necessary to getting pure breeds. It used to be considered the definition of a pure breed that it had many fixed loci for its main characteristics. That condition has been recognized as leading to ill health so they no longer breed for fixed loci, but it remains the definition nevertheless.
No it doesn't. But that's by-the-by. A more important point is that unlike the obsolete methods abandoned by breeders, natural selection was never interested in making every member of a species or sub-species as alike as possible. Indeed, since doing so, as you admit, leads to ill health, natural selection would act against this.
So you are taking these deprecated breeding methods as a model for natural selection when both observation and principle tells us that it isn't.
And this has been explained to you, Faith.
Evidence: loss of genetic diversity result of population splits in the wild.
But this is just something you made up. This is why you're not providing any references, any, what's the word? ... evidence.
Evidence: You can't get new phenotypes unless you get rid of alleles for other phenotypes.
But also, it seems that mostly you can't get new phenotypes unless you have new alleles. I have shown you evidence of such events occurring. This has been explained to you.
Evidence: Cheetah, unique cat with fixed loci, which is the end result of loss of genetic diversity in the formation of new species.
Your fantasy that the loss of diversity in cheetahs was caused by the speciation event is a fantasy for which you have no ... evidence. You just made that up. And if that's really how genetics usually worked, you creationists wouldn't have to go on banging on about cheetahs all the time, you could choose any species.
Evidence: Pod Mrcaru lizards whose large heads and new digestive system formed within thirty years of reproductive isolation on an island where they had been released. Evidence of what happens by reproductive isolation alone over a short period of time. We can assume drastically reduced genetic diversity from the simple fact that only five pairs of lizards were the founding population. It's possible this population has run out of genetic diversity for further evolution. The only way to find out for sure would be to take another set of pairs out of this new population and isolate them on another island.
Evidence: Jutland cattle evolved four different races or species by reproductive isolation alone over a very short period of time. Evolution works fast. It creates new subspecies by eliminating the alleles for other phenotypes. The four different subspecies of cattle in this case may still possess sufficient genetic diversity for further evolution. or they may not.
But your fantasies about the mechanisms for these examples of evolution are not evidence, nor are they evidenced.
This is how evolution works. It works by reproductive isolation of a portion of the alleles that exist in a species. This is how you get new subspecies that differ phenotypically from other populations of the same species. Each separated reproductively isolated population forms because of its reduced genetic diversity. Reduced genetic diversity is essential to evolution of new subspecies, but it also leads to a condition beyond which no further evolution is possible for lack of the very genetic diversity that makes evolution possible.
Mutations happen. This has been explained to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 9:53 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 9:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 25 of 259 (770720)
10-13-2015 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by 14174dm
10-12-2015 10:25 PM


Re: If true, how would the founder look?
Instead of arguing about things from the evolutionary side, shouldn't we be examining the predictions to be made based on Faith's proposal? The search for falsification or confirmation based on prediction & evidence?
So Faith is saying that the pair of canine-kind that walked off the ark had all the genes for all the descendants that now make up the canine family? I assume that would have to include species that have gone extinct.
Not big on biology but wondering how that would work.
Which genes would be switched on in the founding generation? All of them?
With the tiny number of individuals per generation for the first few generations, how would only the genes that became gray wolf stay together in lineage A while only the genes in the silver fox stayed together only in lineage B. Wouldn't you end up mixing them back together?
This is such an excellent idea that I've already done it, on another thread. I'll just quote again what I wrote before:
Let us consider the two Noachian ur-wolves from which all dogs are descended. Between them, as we know from the Faith Theory of Evolution, they must have had all the genetic diversity of modern dogs. Indeed, they need to have exhibited more genetic diversity than there was room for in their loci: they need to have had five transferin alleles, for example, and five alleles in the E series, controlling the distribution of eumelanin, five in the A series, which also controls coat color, at least six alleles for the D4 dopamine receptor, and so on.
Passing over that for the moment, let's think about what they would have been like phenotypically. If they carried examples of every modern allele between them, then they would actually have exhibited every autosomal dominant trait. For example, at least one of them must have been a ridgeback.
Alas, not all autosomal dominant traits are this harmless. Between them the two ancestral wolves would have exhibited (among other traits) hairlessness, missing or abnormally shaped teeth, chondrodysplasia, hyperparathyroidism, three different ways to go blind (progressive retinal atrophy, ocular melanosis and hereditary cataract), at least four separate kidney diseases (cystinuria type IIa, cystinuria type IIb, nephritis, and polycystic kidney disease), anemia, progressive spinal atrophy, Alport syndrome, von Willebrand's disease, Ehlers Danlos syndrome, and an inherited tendency to kidney cancer and bone cancer.
Now if the genetics of wolves as created In The Beginning was such that any two wolves picked 2,000 years later would exhibit this array of symptoms, then wolves would not in fact have lasted for 2,000 years. That can't be it. Instead it must be the case that Noah was the unluckiest guy in the world, who just happened to pick two really awful wolves. (He had similarly bad luck with cats, but that's another story).
These wolves are, depending on how you look at it, either the unluckiest or the luckiest wolves in the world. On the one hand, they are obviously not going to have long happy lives. On the other hand, they must be descended from four wolves that shared those diseases between them, and all four lived long enough to breed. What are the odds?
One thing is clear: the two most defective wolves of all time are not going to survive the 375 days of Noah's flood. We know this because they wouldn't survive five minutes on an inflatable lounger in the shallow end of a swimming pool.
You might think Noah and his family might have held their paws and nursed them through, but bear in mind that Noah and his family between them were suffering from Marfan syndrome, Waardenburg syndrome, von Hippel Lindau syndrome, Peutz Jeghers syndrome, Ehlers Danlos syndrome, von Willebrand disease, Huntington's disease, tuberous sclerosis, neurofibromatosis, retinoblastoma, myotonic dystrophy, hypercholestrolemia, polycystic kidney disease, familial adenomatous polyposis, hereditary spherocytosis, achondroplasia, acute intermittent porphyria, hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy, hereditary hemorrhagic telengiactasia, osteopetrosis type II, hypokalemic periodic paralysis, and seven different types of brittle bone disease. So what with being blind, mad, dwarfish, crippled, and in excruciating pain, they probably had enough on their plates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by 14174dm, posted 10-12-2015 10:25 PM 14174dm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by 14174dm, posted 10-13-2015 12:52 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 1:11 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(3)
Message 26 of 259 (770723)
10-13-2015 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
10-13-2015 1:52 AM


Re: Contributed absolutely nothing??
Faith writes:
Tanypteryx mentioned how Einstein could use his mind to imagine things that others were later able to validate. That's because Einstein was actually doing science. Evolution just IS imagination, it is NOT science.
Einstein didn't just imagine things. He worked them out, considered the consequences of each step and corrected his thought experiments when he made mistakes. He worked really hard at it, making detailed calculations and drawings for every detail. He did not publish his theories until he had worked out each detail and made sure each flaw was corrected.
My point was: you are no Einstein. You refuse to even consider flaws in your thinking when they are pointed out. You never try to correct your errors. You rule out mutations as the source of new genetic diversity and endlessly repeat your claims that genetic depletion is the end of evolution despite being shown evidence to the contrary.
You assert that your assertions are evidence and then repeat and repeat and repeat.
Meanwhile, evolution continues to happen. Millions of scientists report their observations and experiments and not one has ever validated your claims.
It is time to revise your hypothesis because it is clearly contrary to all the actual evidence.
I am sure you will be happy that I will not put any more effort into commenting on this pointless thread

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 1:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 12:59 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
14174dm
Member (Idle past 1109 days)
Posts: 161
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


Message 27 of 259 (770725)
10-13-2015 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
10-13-2015 12:19 AM


Re: If true, how would the founder look?
Your arguments seem to be against evolution.
You should be making arguments that support your proposal.
From my point of view, if there are two people then there are three answers.
1. My answer which may be wrong or incomplete
2. Your answer which may be wrong or incomplete
3. THE ANSWER which we don't know and are trying to find out
Just because I'm wrong doesn't make you right. We both could be wrong.
For example (non-biologist so may be stupid examples) -
Finding parent-child species and showing which genes were lost and that no genes were added.
Finding DNA from specimens either extinct or at least very old and comparing to current specimens. Did ancient bear carcasses found in caves have more functioning genes than current bears?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 12:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 10-13-2015 12:54 PM 14174dm has not replied

  
14174dm
Member (Idle past 1109 days)
Posts: 161
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


Message 28 of 259 (770727)
10-13-2015 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Adequate
10-13-2015 12:06 PM


Re: If true, how would the founder look?
I forgot about the genetic diseases. These would be in the Ark ur-wolves since that was after the Fall so disease and death had entered the world.
I was thinking more along the lines of whether or how all the genes would be expressed.
These ur-wolves would have ALL the genes for all hair colors for all the descendent species for example. Were they multi-colored fuzzballs? Patches of long & patches of short hair?
Would the chromosomes need to be larger than the current ones to hold all the genes? Is there enough non-coding (no function whatsoever) space in the DNA to hold the missing genes?
I am trying to think through how Faith's proposal would work in an individual animal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-13-2015 12:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-13-2015 3:34 PM 14174dm has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 29 of 259 (770728)
10-13-2015 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by 14174dm
10-13-2015 12:42 PM


Re: If true, how would the founder look?
No I'm not just arguing against evolution. My post describing evidences is all about my own argument.
I don't know what you mean "more functioning genes." The farther back toward the ark you go the more alleles there should have been available in every population. Those are what get reduced over many population splits down the centuries. There should have been much greater heterozygosity in all living things at the time of the Flood. The human percentage of heterozygosity now is about 7%. It should have been much greater at the time of the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by 14174dm, posted 10-13-2015 12:42 PM 14174dm has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 30 of 259 (770729)
10-13-2015 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tanypteryx
10-13-2015 12:26 PM


Re: Contributed absolutely nothing??
Again, Einstein could imagine things and have them validated because he was doing real science, working with actual scientific problems. Again, evolution is nothing but speculation and conjecture and fantasy and imaginative hooha, it's not science and the evidence for it is assumptions and conjectures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-13-2015 12:26 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 10-13-2015 1:11 PM Faith has replied
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-13-2015 3:44 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024