Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'

False. You have written posts that do not relate to the evidence of selection provided, rather you go off on some Gish Gallop on other topics all together.This is you failing to answer those posts:

quote:

---

Message 121: Let me start with the iconic Peppered Moths then:

​

quote:

---

Please note that this is a creationist site and they have just said that "This is natural selection in action, but not evolution."

---

​

There is more at Peppered Moths and Natural Selection, but this demonstrates that ICR recognizes and accepts natural selection occurring in this case.

​

So can Davidjay show where the ICR was wrong and why?

---

Your response to the message: none.

quote:

---

Message 122: Another example very similar to the peppered moth is melanism (i.e. coat color) in rock pocket mice:

​

Researchers were able to trace the black coat color to specific mutations:

​

"We conducted association studies by using markers in candidate pigmentation genes and discovered four mutations in the melanocortin-1-receptor gene, Mc1r, that seem to be responsible for adaptive melanism in one population of lava-dwelling pocket mice."
Just a moment...

​

Biologists explain this non-random distribution of coat color as a result of camouflage that protects against predation. This is natural selection. No deities involved, just the consequence of some mice carrying a gene that makes them less noticeable or more noticeable to predators. When they stand out in the environment they are eaten more often so their genes aren't passed on at the same rate.

​

If Davidjay has another explanation for this non-random distribution of coat color in rock pocket mice, now would be the time to hear it.

---

Your response to the message: none.

quote:

---

Message 124: Well, we've had Oldfield Mice, Peppered Moths, and Pocket Mice, so let's have Men.

​

Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 y

​

What are your technical objections* to this research, Dave, which tells you how you got your pretty white ass. And you now have made 28 posts without any sign of "logically and systematically" debunking selection.

---

Your reply:

quote:

---

Message 125: Blue genes,

​

Skin, eye color and hair, still doesnt change skin into non skin, or eyes into ears, or hair into scales. The moth colour change is hardly the missing link evolutionists so want to show as proof of their evolutionary theory. Its just a different color, an adaption ability given by the Lord at Creation...

​

You must show us some men evolving or a system changing from one type to another, show us some men. Or better yet show us some real women.

​

But please no more rabbits in a hat. Thanks

​

David

---

Note the complete absence of the word "selection" in your reply, and the total absence of any reference to the selection observed in the listed posts.Your thread is not about transforming fur to scales or missing links, but debunking selection, specifically natural selection of specific traits that have differential success in survival and reproduction, and as such it is a total fail response.See Message 1 if you are confused about the topic.Enjoy

Curiously this thread is not about creating a "NEW KIND" nor is it about your racism fantasy, it is about selection. You lose.Would you care to try again and address the issue of selection as shown in Message 121, Message 122 and Message 124. Your Message 125 was a complete failure to address the issue.You lost again.For reference on what selection means, please see Message 136Except nobody claimed color created a new KIND or species. You lose.You have yet to establish that "Evolution is a racist doctrine" and I suggest that you return to that topic and do that before spamming other threads with this assertion. You lose. And again, nobody claimed this. What you see is one variety of Pepper moth was selected preferentially over another variety ... of the same species, and thus is an example of selection in action. You lose again. The lie is yours, by putting words in people's mouths that are not what they say. Another loss. Says the person who appears to be totally incapable of debunking selection ... especially in the face of several examples. Posting a bunch of incoherent phrases, while technically "a reply" is not a response to the substance of the previous post.You have not addressed selection. Fail.Loser

Curiously purebred dogs are controlled and maintained by high artificial selection pressure, where any pup that doesn't measure up is dropped.Bad example for use against natural selection, but excellent example of why creationist arguments are wrong -- their posited unevidenced position only occurs in extreme artificial selection conditions, not in the wild.Enjoy

'Yes, and that different breeds were the result of that.Purebreds however don't let new mutations change the purebred lineage, so that changes to pretty high selection pressure for stasis. When any offspring are removed from the breeding pool some genetic material is lost and what is left is more and more inbreeding with associated problems.Let them live wild and they will revert to more variegated dogs in a generation or two by breeding with other dogs. If they survive. Not by anyone's normal definitions.Enjoy

So it's a mutation that allows adults to use milk as a source of nutrition. Sounds like a beneficial mutation to me, one that would be selected when other sources are poor. That it has spread so far around the world demonstrates that (a) it was selected, and (b) that it was beneficial.As for stating truths about creation.com being an ad hominum attack, I put that against you using them as an appeal to authority fallacy -- and that those truths expose them as not being a true authority rather than an ad hominum.Try again.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Can you tell me what enzyme is not pre-existing? Notice the complete acceptance of mutation and selection. Notice that the action of the enzyme was improved by the mutations, thereby demonstrating they are beneficial.Once again, in plain english, they accept selection of beneficial mutations as having occurred.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..

Curiously that is a creationist claim, and a falsehood. The theory of evolution could not give squat about "copious quantities of genetic information" -- just mutation and selection, things we see occurring every day.In addition, your reference to "copious quantities of genetic information" means nothing until you can measure and quantify "information" and actually show increases and decreases. That's one of the ways we know that evolution science doesn't care about it. The other reason is that evolution appears to work very well without any measurement of pseudo-parameters like "information" -- just what actually happens.So evolution is about mutations and selection, selection of mutations that are beneficial (like the lactase mutation and the nylonase mutation), where selection of beneficial mutations occurs because they improve survival or reproduction.I am wondering why you are presenting examples of mutations and their selection on a thread titled "Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection' " ... unless you are following bluegenes suggestion of posting examples of selection occurring.In which case, good job, these are good examples.Enjoy

So still no logic or evidence to debunk selection ... just more empty assertions. Fail. Loser.Still no reply to the issues presented to you of actual examples of actual selection. Fail. Loser. Still no reply to the issues presented to you of actual examples of beneficial mutations. Fail. Loser. Nope. As clearly stated by Admin your topics are not going to be promoted because you have yet to show any response to the issues, the information, and the evidence that has been raised in this and other threads, to show any errors or mistakes in those posts.Replying to a posts with more empty assertion is not a response if it ignores and does not discuss the issues and evidence raised in those posts.Once again, you lose.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

An assertion of your personal belief with no supporting evidence provided. Irrelevant to the topic. Fail. Sad that you can't even comply with your own provisions, to say nothing about complying with forum guidelines (such as Rule 4: Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.) Curiously, nobody has said otherwise. This is just you going off on a tangent instead of dealing with the evidence for selection and beneficial mutations. This is how losers fail. This is actually false on a couple of levels. First the lactase mutation has been identified and it's selection and spread in the general population has even been mapped. Second your body is undergoing a general process of cell replacement over time, such that you have a new skin every 3 years or so, and other parts every 10 years or so. In the process of cell replication mutations often occur, and this is a source of cancers and other changes.

quote:

---

Got lactase?
April 2007

​

In the US and many other countries, we've certainly "got milk," but not everyone can enjoy it. For around 10% of Americans, 10% of Africa's Tutsi tribe, 50% of Spanish and French people, and 99% of Chinese, a tall cold glass of milk means an upset stomach and other unpleasant digestive side effects. In fact, most adults in the world are lactose intolerant and cannot digest lactose, the primary sugar in milk. And yet, regardless of our ancestry, most of us began our lives happily drinking milk from a bottle or breast so what happened in the intervening time? Why do so many babies enjoy lactose and so many adults avoid it? Lactose is broken down by a protein called lactase, which acts as a pair of molecular scissors, snipping the lactose molecule in two. Anyone who drank milk as a baby carries a working version of the gene that codes for lactase. In lactose tolerant individuals, that gene keeps working into adulthood, producing the protein that digests lactose and makes eating ice cream a pleasant experience. But in people who are lactose intolerant, that lactase gene is switched off after weaning. Now, new research reveals that the Stone Age ancestors of European dairy-lovers probably couldn't digest milk either. So how did they get from bellyaches to milk mustaches? The answer is an evolutionary story that takes us from the milkmaids of the Alps to the Maasai herdsmen of Africa.

​

Where's the evolution?
Mutations that keep the lactase gene permanently switched on are common among modern Europeans but not among their ancestors. In March 2007, a team of German and British researchers announced that they went looking for that mutation in the 7000-year-old fossils of ancient Europeans and came up empty-handed. The researchers managed to extract the length of DNA corresponding to the lactose tolerance mutation from eight Neolithic human fossils and one Mesolithic fossil, but those DNA sequences did not carry the telltale mutation. The results suggest that as late as 5000 BC most ancient Europeans could not have digested milk as adults and that they only later evolved into milk-drinking societies.

​

Today, the ability to digest milk as an adult seems like a clear benefit, but that wasn't always the case. Lactose tolerance is only advantageous in environments and cultures where humans have access to domesticated dairy animals. Multiple lines of evidence from human genetics, cattle genetics, and archaeological records suggest that Middle Eastern and North Africans populations domesticated cattle between 7500 and 9000 years ago, and that these animals were later brought into Europe. In that cow-friendly environment, being able to drink milk directly (instead of having to process it into lower-lactose cheese) would have been advantageous, providing additional sustenance and, during droughts, a source of water. The lactose tolerance mutation arose randomly (as all mutations do), but once it arose, it had a distinct advantage in these populations. Natural selection would have favored individuals carrying the lactose tolerance mutation, spreading it through ancient European populations that depended on dairying. Many thousands of years later, we see the indirect (but delicious) effects of this mutation's success in European cuisines: oozing French cheeses, Swiss milk chocolate, and creamy Italian gelatos.

---

Mutations found, documented, identified in different populations, selection for the beneficial mutation is documented in the spread of the gene through much of the general population.Rather than dead and debunked, the process of mutation and selection is alive and well, operating every day. You Lose. Except that the evidence shows, from this and other examples presented on this thread, that selection is happening all around us, continually.Rather than dead and debunked, the process of mutation and selection is alive and well, operating every day. You Lose. More meaningless garbage designed to deflect the discussion than to answer the issues of mutations and selection being observed and documented. GIGO and spam.Rather than dead and debunked, the process of mutation and selection is alive and well, operating every day. You Lose.You have yet to provide any evidence that would debunk selection, all you do is repeat empty unevidenced assertions of your personal opinions. That is not complying with rule 4 that I can see -- can you explain how it does? Here it is again:

quote:

---

Rule 4: Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.)

---

You have failed to provide "reasoned support" your thesis with a single piece of evidence (to say nothing of "additional evidence" ...) in 37 posts so far on this thread. One would think that anyone starting a thread would have objective empirical evidence to substantiate it ... at least in this science forum. Epic failure. Loser.All you have is assertions and repetition, not evidence. You Lose.Enjoy

How do you know? How is that "information" measured and quantified? Or you could read Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments and get back to me.Enjoy

No.Information is undefined and has no metric to measure whether it is there or not, nor compare from one species to another, therefore it can have no need to be incorporated into any scientific field, to say nothing of theory."Information" is useless babble to science. Science operates on what can be measured, what can be quantified and compared empirically. Nope. These are invalid conclusion reached on the basis of a false premise.The topic is debunking selection not fantasies about made-up parametersEnjoy

If it were me, I would start a whole new thread on the topic of information. Present what you think it is and how it can be measured, and then use these two previous posts as arguments based on the presentation to show how it develops a deeper understanding of the parameter...Good luck.Enjoy

But it is your job as the thread author to defend your topic against evidence that invalidates it. Out of curiosity I just went back through the thread and isolated all the posts that presented evidence or typical situations where natural selection occurs -- actually occurs --

1. Message 7 - Re: Let the readers decide
   
2. Message 22 -
   
3. Message 23 -
   
4. Message 25 - On selection
   
5. Message 33 - Re: BACK TO THE TOPIC !
   
6. Message 34 - Re: On selection
   
7. Message 40 -
   
8. Message 48 - Re: Evolutionists cant defend their god of Selection
   
9. Message 52 - Re: Evolutionists cant defend their god of Selection
   
10. Message 61 - Re: Evolution Selection supposedly sustains life ? ?
    
11. Message 80 - How many, I wonder?
    
12. Message 88 - No biology yet...
    
13. Message 100 - David: "Why are evolutionists so ignorant of genetics"...
    
14. Message 104 - When will selection be debunked?
    
15. Message 105 - Re: memes are like genes, inheritable and selectable
    
16. Message 117 - Start talking about biology.
    
17. Message 121 - Peppered moths (Biston betularia) and Natural Selection
    
18. Message 122 - Coat Color in Rock Pocket Mice
    
19. Message 124 - Of Moths, Mice and Men
    
20. Message 133 - A fairly big example of selection
    
21. Message 136 - Putting Davidjay back on track ... maybe ...
    
22. Message 137 - Re: Color is not a new KIND
    
23. Message 140 - Re: Color is not a new KIND, nor is the thread about "NEW KINDs"
    
24. Message 143 - Re: Of Moths, Mice and Men
    
25. Message 149 - Re: ring species
    
26. Message 166 - Re: Lactase and Nylonase
    
27. Message 168 - Re: Lactase and Nylonase
    
28. Message 173 - Re: NO mutations away from mothers milk..miracle
    
29. Message 180 - Re: What changes have their been in new babies from old babies ?
    
30. Message 186 - Re: What changes have their been in new babies from old babies ?
    
31. Message 189 - Time to start the impossible debunking
    
32. Message 210 - Better a bat than batty

-- and the lack of response debate from you means that you are not doing anything to defend your topic against the evidence that invalidates your assertion.The score is 32 to 0 so far, and you haven't even left the starting gate ... if you are ever going to defend your topic, now looks like a good time to get going.Enjoy

This is really pathetic. Yes they are different, different in every generation, because you have mutations your parents did not have. This is measured and documented and it would be dumb and stupid to say otherwise. Curiously they don't all have to be beneficial to be different, so once again you dance around issues instead of being straight-forward. Or even (heaven forfend) attempt to learn something.More amusingly they don't need to result in branching of species to be different, hence variations in skin tones, eye colors, hair types, height, etc etc etc Which is why you can get blood transfusions from anyone, no worries.And I bet if you try real hard you can come up with something that is even more ignorant and uninformed. Notice how repeating this after multiple answers are made is just outright lying, a desperate ploy trying to cause a stink rather than deal with any of the multitude of issues raise that invalidate his arguments.Documented 32 issues raised in response to Davidjay comments and he has not responded in good faith to any of them, instead making posts like this.Sad. But the first sign of cognitive dissonance is to mock the dissonant information.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Says the person who whines to admin about not being respected, yet this is his SOP. Color change is due to selection occurring, documented and recorded showing it to be a fact that selection occurs.This invalidates your base assertion of this thread. You are wrong. And nobody said it was.Black mice are better adapted to living on lava beds
Tan mice are better adapted to living on tan soil
Black mice evolved from tan mice in two separate locations via two different mutations, which allowed black mice to take advantage of the lava bed ecologyYou, however, seem to be confused about evolution and selection being racist, but have yet to demonstrate it. Which is it more beneficial to be on lava beds -- black or tan?
Which is it more beneficial to be on tan soils -- black or tan?
Which are "superior" mice -- black or tan?Inquiring minds want to know. (anyone want to wager on when Davidjay will answer this question already asked several times on this thread?)Enjoy