Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 118 (8777 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-18-2017 4:52 AM
364 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 362 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: BruceR.Fenton
Post Volume:
Total: 816,277 Year: 20,883/21,208 Month: 1,316/2,326 Week: 652/345 Day: 14/161 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
13141516
17
18Next
Author Topic:   A New Run at the End of Evolution by Genetic Processes Argument
Faith
Member
Posts: 25816
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 responded

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

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1341
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


(2)
Message 242 of 259 (771915)
10-31-2015 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
10-31-2015 5:57 PM


Re: Reliable Mutations
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.

But DNA replication is not perfect, is it? SO it doesn't follow that everything should be perfect and without stochastic processes.

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.

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."

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.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 10-31-2015 5:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 10-31-2015 8:31 PM herebedragons has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25816
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 responded

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

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1341
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 244 of 259 (771918)
10-31-2015 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
10-31-2015 8:31 PM


Re: Reliable Mutations
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,

But you are not really answering anything, you are just making stuff up.

I'm going to answer it from a creationist point of view

Which is saying "making stuff up." There is no evidence of a mechanism that produces "reliable mutations."

The evidence is

1. that mutations today deal mostly duds and death but by contrast the many alleles per locus are viable.

That is not the evidence. That is an exaggerated, misrepresentation of reality.

2/ Imputing to God any form of error or incompetence is really a form of unbelief.

That is not evidence either, but an opinion. And I did not impute error or incompetence to God, I said that what you think are errors and mistakes are not really so.

So, the idea is that alleles increased by 350% in the dog kind by some unknown "reliable mutation" mechanism which then suddenly stop functioning and began making mistakes. This requires that this mechanism knows how to make mutations by intentionally manipulating nucleotides. To say I'm skeptical is an major understatement.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 10-31-2015 8:31 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 1:49 AM herebedragons has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25816
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 responded

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

    
saab93f
Member (Idle past 207 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(1)
Message 246 of 259 (771930)
11-01-2015 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Faith
11-01-2015 1:49 AM


Re: Reliable Mutations
Faith, your perseverence is commendable. Period.

You do know that there are thousands of scientists on evolutionary biology alone who share your xian beliefs? You also know that they do not go to work every morning in an intent to destroy the basis of your faith?

What they (just like their buddhist or atheist colleagues) do is use science to get answers - not use answers to do science.

What you are doing is vomiting on those honest scientists and their achievements. If there was a god, I'd venture a guess that s/he would not like that at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 1:49 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1341
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 247 of 259 (771932)
11-01-2015 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Faith
11-01-2015 1:49 AM


Re: Reliable Mutations
There is a difference between looking at the evidence and saying this suggests such and such and saying things that go against the evidence because one has a preconceived notion about what the conclusion should be. Not only is there no evidence that there is a mechanism that can produce "reliable mutations" but there is evidence about how mutations ARE produced. There is not evidence that supports the idea that the original creation was perfect in the way you are describing it; that is an assumption you have based on preconceived idea of what perfect means (actually the Bible says the original creation was "very good" which is not the equivalent of perfect).

You are free to speculate, I don't see a problem with that, but those speculations are hardly evidence against criticisms of your genetic depletion hypothesis.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 1:49 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3872
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 248 of 259 (771934)
11-01-2015 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Faith
11-01-2015 1:49 AM


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."

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 1:49 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by herebedragons, posted 11-01-2015 8:11 AM JonF has not yet responded
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 10:19 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1341
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 249 of 259 (771936)
11-01-2015 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by JonF
11-01-2015 8:00 AM


Re: Reliable Mutations
without challenging any of your preconceptions.

Yes! Excellent way to put it. Discussions like these are meant to challenge our preconceived ideas as is the scientific process in general. "Making stuff up" is answering criticisms of your preconceptions without having to actually address those preconceptions.


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


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

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25816
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 yet responded

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

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1552
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 251 of 259 (771943)
11-01-2015 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
11-01-2015 10:19 AM


Re: Reliable Mutations
You all still believe the wrong stuff.

Well, that is what you believe.

We, on the other hand, have concluded that our version of evolution is correct because all the evidence supports it.

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?

No, you are coming up with incorrect stuff because you have never studied genetics and you don't know what you are talking about.

We, on the other hand, can look at what is known about genetics and clearly see that none of the stuff you are coming up with actually describes reality.

Reality trumps belief every time, Faith, every time.


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 250 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 10:19 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 10:44 AM Tanypteryx has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25816
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


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 responded

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

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1552
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 253 of 259 (771946)
11-01-2015 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
11-01-2015 10:44 AM


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

Well, I answered your "belief" with our conclusions.

Just trying to help.


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 252 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 10:44 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18855
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 254 of 259 (771971)
11-01-2015 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Faith
10-31-2015 9:52 AM


those "good" mutations ...
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, ...

Another term for them would be beneficial mutations.

No need for a new name for an observed process -- mutations happen, some deleterious, some neutral and some beneficial.

If it was not in the original individuals then it must be a mutation.

If it benefits the bearer in survival and reproduction then it is by definition beneficial.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 10-31-2015 9:52 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18855
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 255 of 259 (771972)
11-01-2015 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
10-29-2015 12:32 AM


Re: Does Message 176 describe your argument
Getting back to this ...

I'm sorry, I'm trying to be accurate. I'm afraid of letting a statement stand that is only partially accurate that can later cause problems.

Well I worry about not being able to discern what the argument is when it keeps wiggling. It's fine to be tentative, but if your foundation is tentative then the conclusion necessarily is tentative at best, and you need to recognize that as well.

OK, that's clear but the other phrasing wasn't.

Think of it as taking a snap-shot of the genotype\phenotype mix of the first\origin generation of the daughter population from the isolation. If one could tabulate all the allele frequencies of all the genes you would have a definition of that population at that moment.

We could do Hardy-Weinberg ratio calculations on them:

quote:

The Hardy-Weinberg ratio is the starting point for much of the theory of population genetics. It is the ratio of genotype frequencies that evolve when mating is random and neither selection nor drift are operating. ...

These frequencies are reached after a single generation of random mating from any initial genotype frequencies ...


That would quantify your initial population.

The thing is, it seems clear that you can have a very homogeneous population as far as general appearance goes, that nevertheless has high genetic diversity. They can't be "cookie cutter" homogeneous but nevertheless the overall appearance is remarkably homogeneous. ...

Agreed, some traits are somewhat invisible to the eye, leading to better health for instance, but most of the phenotype selection would be apparent in different sizes, different details, and they would be apparent if you were to document each individual rather than look at a tv image of a herd for instance.

So "very homogeneous" would be in the eye of the beholder and the detail they invoked.

... A million wildebeests look just about identical to each other, ...

Ever looked at a herd of cows that all appeared superficially the same but differed in details?

... . In fact there could be enough genetic diversity to form many such daughter populations out of the same larger population and each would end up differing from both the parent population and the other populations. All due to their different gene frequencies and their reduced genetic diversity from the original population. The thing I find hardest to explain is how there could be such apparent homogeneity with so much genetic diversity but it seems to be the case. Agree or disagree?

Curiously I think your "hardest to explain" problem is in your own making by not seeing the diversity in the original population.

Seems so, yes.
OK, yes.
Yes.
Accurate representations of things I've said, ...

So we have a lot of agreement thus far, but ...

Um, this isn't my argument, it's merely an observation on which I base my argument.

... but all these points aren't my argument, they are observations that contribute to my argument. Undergirding as it were. Support. Or context. Sorry if this seems a nitpick but to me it's not. The argument is that these processes require reduced genetic diversity.

Well, I think what we have here is one of the reasons you keep saying that people don't understand your argument, as we are using this word in slightly different ways.

If it is an observation that you base your hypothesis on it is part of your argument that leads to that hypothesis, this is part of the formal structure of the way science is described.

Your argument is not your conclusion, it is the path that leads to your conclusion: if persuasive it should lead others to a similar conclusion.

The conclusion is not the argument it is the hypothesis that is based on the argument/s that are presented to support it.

Your hypothesis is that these processes require reduced genetic diversity. As an hypothesis it is testable and falsifiable.

This gets us to the point of new phenotype mixes beginning to occur ...

Message 176:

1. every time a population splits, for whatever reason, one population does not have all the frequency of alleles that the other population has -- or that the parent population had.

2. that this means that the frequency of alleles in the Daughter Population is different from the frequency of alleles in the Parent\Remainder Population.

C1: THEREFORE the distribution of different phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the first (founding) generation of the Daughter Population will be different from the distribution of those existing phenotype traits (the makeup of the phenome) in the Parent Population.

3. this different distribution will give rise to new phenotype trait mixes in the second generation (1st set of offspring), due to breeding between the first generation types having different distributions from the Parent Population.

Do you agree?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 10-29-2015 12:32 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
13141516
17
18Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017