Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


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 220 of 259 (771828)
10-30-2015 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by herebedragons
10-30-2015 8:42 AM


Re: Your "falsifications" are falsified
I don't think you are aware when you are using technical language. I have NO idea what anything you said means. I don't know what a "primer" is but you go on as if I do. I have no idea why a strip of fungal DNA should give any information about anything other than fungi. Sorry. your attempt at explanation just doesn't explain anything.
As for wolves, I thought the study was merely talking about the sum total of alleles in the registered dogs they studied, not the whole dog population. In any case I have no idea what you mean about 400 alleles on the ark or how you get that from the DNA markers.
This is a completely incomprehensible post to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by herebedragons, posted 10-30-2015 8:42 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by herebedragons, posted 10-30-2015 1:03 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 222 of 259 (771836)
10-30-2015 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by herebedragons
10-30-2015 1:03 PM


Re: Your "falsifications" are falsified
ome on Faith. You have been studying this topic for over 10 years and have no concept of the BASICS??? I really thought you were trying. Or... are you simply feigning ignorance to avoid having to deal with the implications?
You can drop the accusations, they are tiresome, irrelevant and wrong.
I didn't say I was studying genetics in general. I study what I feel I need to grasp for my argument. I'm not going to become a geneticist or a biologist.
No new alleles can be created - according to you.
You've missed a lot of things I've said. There has to be some sort of mutation involved.
I'll have to come back to the rest. I'm on my way out.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by herebedragons, posted 10-30-2015 1:03 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by JonF, posted 10-30-2015 1:37 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 224 by Admin, posted 10-31-2015 9:27 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 225 of 259 (771860)
10-31-2015 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Admin
10-31-2015 9:27 AM


Re: Moderator Suggestion
If the question is simply where did the alleles come from above and beyond the two for each locus that had to have been in the individuals on the ark, I've said there had to have been a form of mutation to account for them. A very reliable form of mutation I might add, that actually formed alleles instead of mistakes, unfunctioning alleles or diseases, a mutation rather different from that we know today.
And as far as the "markers" go I'll just take HBD's word for it that they are a reliable indicator of numbers of alleles, though I will probably never understand how the markers work.
But I've gone on to the problem of trying to explain why additive processes, like mutation, migration, gene flow, cross breeding and so on, can't lead to macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Admin, posted 10-31-2015 9:27 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by NosyNed, posted 10-31-2015 10:43 AM Faith has replied
 Message 232 by herebedragons, posted 10-31-2015 1:20 PM Faith has replied
 Message 254 by RAZD, posted 11-01-2015 3:38 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 227 of 259 (771866)
10-31-2015 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by NosyNed
10-31-2015 10:43 AM


Re: Reliable Mutations
Why don't you distinguish between mutations in body cells and those in sex cells? Those in body cells are completely irrelevant to evolution because they don't get passed on.
And the fact that there are so many of them does not exactly suggest a healthy process at all, which presumably you are trying to prove here, that mutations that are mistakes are sufficient. The only reason you need *enough* is because there are so many NOT-OKish mutations, some of which actually kill the life they are credited with making.
You accept that as just a fact of nature. But I think it argues for a perfect original Creation that has degenerated. It's hard to see how such an UNreliable hit-or-miss trial-and-error system could ever have produced one functioning cell let alone all life as we see it. The odds are ridiculously against it, but that too is an article of faith about nature that you all accept. Yes, when you "examine the real world" this is what you see, but what you SHOULD see is an originally perfect system that has a major bug in it, not at all what it was meant to be.
Nature is so wonderfully complex and precise in so many ways, how did it manage to goof up about something as basic as the method that forms the coding system for the variability of life forms? DNA processes themselves are wonderfully precise, unbelievably complex and yet orchestrated to an amazing perfection. How DNA replicates itself, which we've all seen illustrated in various animations, is truly awesome in the way that word should be used. The basic system itself ought to be regarded as evidence for a Creator. The organization, the precision that is required for the reproduction of life is breathtaking, yet you all believe it just came together out of mindless physical ingredients? And somehow that amazingly precise machinery also makes all those mistakes in replication we call mutations? You all believe that such imprecision is how nature works to produce all that perfection and precision? This does not compute.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by NosyNed, posted 10-31-2015 10:43 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by herebedragons, posted 10-31-2015 1:01 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 229 of 259 (771872)
10-31-2015 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by herebedragons
10-31-2015 12:49 PM


Re: Moderator Suggestion
That was actually illuminating, since I wouldn't have guessed that saying your post is incomprehensible was anything more than saying it's incomprehensible TO ME. Which is all I meant. I assume you know what you are talking about, but it isn't reaching ME, that's all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by herebedragons, posted 10-31-2015 12:49 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 231 of 259 (771877)
10-31-2015 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by herebedragons
10-31-2015 1:01 PM


Re: Reliable Mutations
I take it you mean this as a rhetorical question, because I am skeptical that you would really be open to the explanation.
I don't mind explanations, what I mind is accusations that I'm not "open" to this that or the other for underhanded reasons. If you could keep that in mind, I'd be happy to hear an explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by herebedragons, posted 10-31-2015 1:01 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by herebedragons, posted 10-31-2015 1:34 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 234 of 259 (771886)
10-31-2015 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by herebedragons
10-31-2015 1:20 PM


Re: Moderator Suggestion
Yes, I guess I did miss where you postulated "a very reliable form of mutation." Would this be of the type where the polymerases know what mutations are needed and deliberately make nucleotide substitutions that the organism needs to evolve? Or is it divine intervention?
No, it would be the consistent never-failing production of a viable allele instead of one that either has no discernible effect or produces disease and death. The viable alternative alleles vary the expression of the gene, right? They don't need to "know" anything, they just do something that works as opposed to something that is either a dud or destructive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by herebedragons, posted 10-31-2015 1:20 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 235 of 259 (771888)
10-31-2015 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by herebedragons
10-31-2015 1:34 PM


Re: Reliable Mutations
I apologize, but it often feels that way, and I am not the only one who gets that impression.
The main reason you or anybody get that impression is that you have the ToE bias and don't understand how a YEC thinks.,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by herebedragons, posted 10-31-2015 1:34 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by herebedragons, posted 10-31-2015 2:27 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 236 of 259 (771893)
10-31-2015 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by herebedragons
10-31-2015 1:01 PM


Re: Reliable Mutations
Two things I failed to address in your post:
It isn't "personal incredulity" to appreciate that such a complex system is evidence of a Creator, it is in fact actual evidence of a Creator.
The other thing is that you didn't address the other point I was making: the first is that the precision is evidence of a Creator; the second is that the imprecision of mutations is evidence of a bug in the system because the Creator obviously only creates perfection.
So are you accepting that imprecision as how nature works as the Creator made it or do you agree with me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by herebedragons, posted 10-31-2015 1:01 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by herebedragons, posted 10-31-2015 2:57 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 238 of 259 (771896)
10-31-2015 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by herebedragons
10-31-2015 2:27 PM


Re: Reliable Mutations
But in order to be this "never-failing" process, there would need to be some type of foreknowledge of what result any particular mutation would produce. What cellular process would "know" that?
No there would not need to be such a thing. All that's needed is the CHEMICAL "logic" of what works to produce a protein that does something that works and isn't a dud or lethal to the host. That should be a purely chemical process.
I need a break. Back later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by herebedragons, posted 10-31-2015 2:27 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by herebedragons, posted 10-31-2015 3:20 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 241 of 259 (771912)
10-31-2015 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by herebedragons
10-31-2015 3:20 PM


Re: Reliable Mutations
Something you may not be aware of, but in organic chemical reactions there are often (usually) impurities (side reactions) produced just because of the nature of organic chemical interactions. This is way beyond what we can cover here, but even this "chemical logic" is imperfect. Basically, it has to do with reaction energies and stochastic processes and though one product may be highly favored, other products occur simply by chance.
In Organic Chemistry, when we drew a chemical reaction, we also had to also specify what side products were likely to be produced and in what proportion based on reaction energies.
If one acknowledges the precision and perfection of the replication system of DNA, and thinks it makes good evidence of a Creator, as you've said of yourself, it would seem to follow that the same precision and perfection is to be expected of all His works, and that nothing can be written off as accidental. If He can design the complex DNA molecule and its amazingly orchestrated workings, He could also design a method for increasing the number of alleles without error. I would have to assume that since the precision we've already talked about is chemically executed as it were, that the same accuracy must also be possible for any chemically executed function of DNA. Mistakes can't be attributed to the Creator, they have to be part of the degeneration of Creation since the Fall.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by herebedragons, posted 10-31-2015 3:20 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by herebedragons, posted 10-31-2015 7:51 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 243 of 259 (771917)
10-31-2015 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by herebedragons
10-31-2015 7:51 PM


Re: Reliable Mutations
But DNA replication is not perfect, is it? SO it doesn't follow that everything should be perfect and without stochastic processes.
But if I'm answering the question where did all the other alleles per locus come from since the ark if on the ark every individual only had two per locus, then I'm going to answer it from a creationist point of view, not an evolutionist point of view. There may be other creationist explanations than the one I'm giving about mutation, but sticking to mutation, from my point of view it can't be the miserable mutation process that exists today, that makes everything from uselessness to instant death and only very rarely something the organism can make use of. The many alleles per locus are GOOD alleles, they FUNCTION, so they aren't like today's miserable collection of duds and death dealers.
If He can design the complex DNA molecule and its amazingly orchestrated workings, He could also design a method for increasing the number of alleles without error.
But there is no evidence that He DID do such a thing. It is something you are making up.
The evidence is
1. that mutations today deal mostly duds and death but by contrast the many alleles per locus are viable.
2/ Imputing to God any form of error or incompetence is really a form of unbelief.
Mistakes can't be attributed to the Creator, they have to be part of the degeneration of Creation since the Fall.
But that is assuming that the way life works is a "mistake."
Seems more like an observation to me, that mutations are mistakes.
But this is all off topic - a distraction. Even if everything was created perfect as you suggest, we are discussing how things work NOW. Even if it is true that the fall is responsible for stochastic processes, they still exist NOW. Perhaps the fall put the processes of evolution into motion, but those processes ARE at work now, so if we want to understand biology, we study evolution.
[/qs]
See my first answer above. I may have been sidetracked somewhat by Ned's post, but it's not really off topic. I'm answering the question about more than two alleles per locus since the ark.
I'm not talking about all the processes of evolution, just mutations. RELIABLE mutations are the only possibility I can think of.
Everything I think is aligned with the creationist view of a perfect original Creation that is degenerating because of the Fall. It wouldn't make sense for me to think in evolutionist terms about biology or anything else.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by herebedragons, posted 10-31-2015 7:51 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by herebedragons, posted 10-31-2015 9:32 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 245 of 259 (771922)
11-01-2015 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by herebedragons
10-31-2015 9:32 PM


Re: Reliable Mutations
HBD, if I'm asked to explain how alleles beyond the two in the original individual were added, I have to speculate about how it might have occurred. Calling that "making things up" is just poisoning the well. ALL theories about the ancient past are "making things up" really. Everything Darwin said was certainly "making things up."
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by herebedragons, posted 10-31-2015 9:32 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by saab93f, posted 11-01-2015 4:44 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 247 by herebedragons, posted 11-01-2015 7:45 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 248 by JonF, posted 11-01-2015 8:00 AM Faith has replied
 Message 256 by Admin, posted 11-02-2015 8:18 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 250 of 259 (771940)
11-01-2015 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by JonF
11-01-2015 8:00 AM


Re: Reliable Mutations
You were asked for an explanation of how so many alleles were formed. The .answer you gave was how those alleles came to be without challenging any of your preconceptions. For the most part scientists don't add that caveat.
Especially, Darwin didn't. he based his explanations on solid evidence and known physical process. Whereas you will posit any impossible and un-evidenced scenario that saves your preconceptions.
That's the way this debate goes. Darwin was wrong about most of what he said. He assumed microevolution was open-ended. It isn't but you still all think it is. He thought natural selection accounted for the varieties and races or "species," but nothing more than isolation is needed to account for that. You all still believe the wrong stuff. I'm coming up with some right stuff because I don't have YOUR preconceptions, but you aren't anywhere near rethinking them are you?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by JonF, posted 11-01-2015 8:00 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-01-2015 10:40 AM Faith has replied
 Message 257 by Admin, posted 11-02-2015 8:26 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 252 of 259 (771944)
11-01-2015 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Tanypteryx
11-01-2015 10:40 AM


Re: Reliable Mutations
Nice. You answer my "belief" with yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-01-2015 10:40 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-01-2015 11:13 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024