Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 40 of 323 (806200)
04-23-2017 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Davidjay
04-20-2017 9:34 AM


Davidjay writes:
Evolutionists admit their so called mutations all come about at random, but they seem to have deified their natural selction of this so called beneficial mutations with a non random deity called "SELECTION'.
So lets logically and systematically debunk this deity of theirs....
Well? We're waiting. How many posts are you going to make before you start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Davidjay, posted 04-20-2017 9:34 AM Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Davidjay, posted 04-24-2017 11:33 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 61 of 323 (806328)
04-24-2017 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Davidjay
04-24-2017 11:33 AM


Re: Evolution Selection supposedly sustains life ? ?
Davidjay writes:
bluegenes writes:
Davidjay writes:
Evolutionists admit their so called mutations all come about at random, but they seem to have deified their natural selction of this so called beneficial mutations with a non random deity called "SELECTION'.
So lets logically and systematically debunk this deity of theirs....
Well? We're waiting. How many posts are you going to make before you start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?
Selection is your god, not mine. Please defend your faith and state something about your beloved nonrandom selector who selects living mutations that somehow someway are already viable and ALIVE.
Ahhh you dont say your god brings them to life, you dsay your god keeps them alive by not killing them into extinction with HER environmental conditions.
OK, we are making progress, you say evolution is a SUSTAINER and PROVIDER of magic mutations that are alive and viable, and 'She' or MOTHER NATURE or a divine environment keeps them alive by her conditions, and selects and sustains these exploding mutational new life forms.
Sort of like a radiation scientist picking out new mutated life forms that are radioactive that aren;t effected by a radioactive environment....
Im not buying it, or ready to honor your god of SELECTION and her SUSTAINING ABILITIES of what is already alive.
Now we are making progress.... as logically speaking evolutionists can not say selection gives anything LIFE, it only supposedly sustains or selects life forms, or sustains life forms under her wings.....
Ahah, I knew I or we would further this debate and come to the basic premise of evolutionary theory or lies.
Well? We're waiting. How many posts are you going to make before you start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Davidjay, posted 04-24-2017 11:33 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 80 of 323 (806414)
04-25-2017 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Davidjay
04-25-2017 11:42 AM


How many, I wonder?
Davidjay writes:
bluegenes writes:
Davidjay writes:
bluegenes writes:
Davidjay writes:
Evolutionists admit their so called mutations all come about at random, but they seem to have deified their natural selction of this so called beneficial mutations with a non random deity called "SELECTION'.
So lets logically and systematically debunk this deity of theirs....
Well? We're waiting. How many posts are you going to make before you start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?
Selection is your god, not mine. Please defend your faith and state something about your beloved nonrandom selector who selects living mutations that somehow someway are already viable and ALIVE.
Ahhh you dont say your god brings them to life, you dsay your god keeps them alive by not killing them into extinction with HER environmental conditions.
OK, we are making progress, you say evolution is a SUSTAINER and PROVIDER of magic mutations that are alive and viable, and 'She' or MOTHER NATURE or a divine environment keeps them alive by her conditions, and selects and sustains these exploding mutational new life forms.
Sort of like a radiation scientist picking out new mutated life forms that are radioactive that aren;t effected by a radioactive environment....
Im not buying it, or ready to honor your god of SELECTION and her SUSTAINING ABILITIES of what is already alive.
Now we are making progress.... as logically speaking evolutionists can not say selection gives anything LIFE, it only supposedly sustains or selects life forms, or sustains life forms under her wings.....
Ahah, I knew I or we would further this debate and come to the basic premise of evolutionary theory or lies.
Well? We're waiting. How many posts are you going to make before you start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?
Variability is an excuse by evolutionists to try and give evolution credibility.
Variability as in mankind, is limited to the superficial, as with leg length etc etc etc etc etc... and more etc. Its variety but we do NOT get a new species or apelike creature from our combinations via mating
STUDY GENETICS evolutionists and stop this insanity of yours !!!
Well? We're waiting. How many posts are you going to make before you start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Davidjay, posted 04-25-2017 11:42 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 88 of 323 (806438)
04-25-2017 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Davidjay
04-25-2017 1:42 PM


No biology yet...
Davidjay writes:
bluegenes writes:
Davidjay writes:
bluegenes writes:
Davidjay writes:
bluegenes writes:
Davidjay writes:
Evolutionists admit their so called mutations all come about at random, but they seem to have deified their natural selction of this so called beneficial mutations with a non random deity called "SELECTION'.
So lets logically and systematically debunk this deity of theirs....
Well? We're waiting. How many posts are you going to make before you start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?
Selection is your god, not mine. Please defend your faith and state something about your beloved nonrandom selector who selects living mutations that somehow someway are already viable and ALIVE.
Ahhh you dont say your god brings them to life, you dsay your god keeps them alive by not killing them into extinction with HER environmental conditions.
OK, we are making progress, you say evolution is a SUSTAINER and PROVIDER of magic mutations that are alive and viable, and 'She' or MOTHER NATURE or a divine environment keeps them alive by her conditions, and selects and sustains these exploding mutational new life forms.
Sort of like a radiation scientist picking out new mutated life forms that are radioactive that aren;t effected by a radioactive environment....
Im not buying it, or ready to honor your god of SELECTION and her SUSTAINING ABILITIES of what is already alive.
Now we are making progress.... as logically speaking evolutionists can not say selection gives anything LIFE, it only supposedly sustains or selects life forms, or sustains life forms under her wings.....
Ahah, I knew I or we would further this debate and come to the basic premise of evolutionary theory or lies.
Well? We're waiting. How many posts are you going to make before you start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?
Variability is an excuse by evolutionists to try and give evolution credibility.
Variability as in mankind, is limited to the superficial, as with leg length etc etc etc etc etc... and more etc. Its variety but we do NOT get a new species or apelike creature from our combinations via mating
STUDY GENETICS evolutionists and stop this insanity of yours !!!
Well? We're waiting. How many posts are you going to make before you start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?
I wonder why evolutionists cant explain their own theory and get upset when people dont just accept it hook, line and sinker, by FAITH. Why cant they answer questions, why are they so sensitive, and get so angry. If someone doesn;t understand their double speak, why dont they just use scientific principles to explain their theory or theory of a theory or a theory of a theory of a theory.
.
So come on evolutionists dig deep and explain how sellection is alive and picking out life forms that are already alive.
Tell us how variety and recombination is a mutational change rather than a God Gifted variety change.
Ready begin now. Stick to the subject !!!
PST) Inbreeding is not mutational change nor selective change. Its man made manipulation.
I think I know why ? Theres nothing to the theory !
Well? We're waiting. How many posts are you going to make before you start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Davidjay, posted 04-25-2017 1:42 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 100 of 323 (807656)
05-04-2017 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Davidjay
05-04-2017 11:38 AM


David: "Why are evolutionists so ignorant of genetics"...
Davidjay in the O.P. writes:
Evolutionists admit their so called mutations all come about at random, but they seem to have deified their natural selction of this so called beneficial mutations with a non random deity called "SELECTION'.
So lets logically and systematically debunk this deity of theirs, after they try to confirm Her or His or Its Godlike Process.
You've now made 25 posts in this thread. So, when are you going to start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?
Here's a paper for you.
Positive selection in mice
quote:
Here we identify genetic changes contributing to an adaptive difference in color pattern between two subspecies of oldfield mice (Peromyscus polionotus). One mainland subspecies has a cryptic dark brown dorsal coat, while a younger beach-dwelling subspecies has a lighter coat produced by natural selection for camouflage on pale coastal sand dunes. Using genome-wide linkage mapping, we identified three chromosomal regions (two of major and one of minor effect) associated with differences in pigmentation traits. Two candidate genes, the melanocortin-1 receptor (Mc1r) and its antagonist, the Agouti signaling protein (Agouti), map to independent regions that together are responsible for most of the difference in pigmentation between subspecies....
Now, give us your technical reasons why you think that the conclusions of these biologists are wrong. Support any claims you make with references to the relevant research.
Welcome, everyone, to the part of the thread in which our David will "logically and systematically" debunk all the research literature on positive selection that you choose to present him with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Davidjay, posted 05-04-2017 11:38 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(3)
Message 104 of 323 (807961)
05-07-2017 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Davidjay
05-07-2017 11:07 AM


When will selection be debunked?
bluegenes writes:
Davidjay in the O.P. writes:
Evolutionists admit their so called mutations all come about at random, but they seem to have deified their natural selction of this so called beneficial mutations with a non random deity called "SELECTION'.
So lets logically and systematically debunk this deity of theirs,....
You've now made 25 posts in this thread. So, when are you going to start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?
Here's a paper for you.
Positive selection in mice
quote:
Here we identify genetic changes contributing to an adaptive difference in color pattern between two subspecies of oldfield mice (Peromyscus polionotus). One mainland subspecies has a cryptic dark brown dorsal coat, while a younger beach-dwelling subspecies has a lighter coat produced by natural selection for camouflage on pale coastal sand dunes. Using genome-wide linkage mapping, we identified three chromosomal regions (two of major and one of minor effect) associated with differences in pigmentation traits. Two candidate genes, the melanocortin-1 receptor (Mc1r) and its antagonist, the Agouti signaling protein (Agouti), map to independent regions that together are responsible for most of the difference in pigmentation between subspecies....
Now, give us your technical reasons why you think that the conclusions of these biologists are wrong. Support any claims you make with references to the relevant research.
You've now made 26 posts in this thread. When are you going to start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Davidjay, posted 05-07-2017 11:07 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 117 of 323 (808254)
05-09-2017 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Davidjay
05-09-2017 9:41 AM


Start talking about biology.
bluegenes writes:
bluegenes writes:
Davidjay in the O.P. writes:
Evolutionists admit their so called mutations all come about at random, but they seem to have deified their natural selction of this so called beneficial mutations with a non random deity called "SELECTION'.
So lets logically and systematically debunk this deity of theirs,....
You've now made 25 posts in this thread. So, when are you going to start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?
Here's a paper for you.
Positive selection in mice
quote:
Here we identify genetic changes contributing to an adaptive difference in color pattern between two subspecies of oldfield mice (Peromyscus polionotus). One mainland subspecies has a cryptic dark brown dorsal coat, while a younger beach-dwelling subspecies has a lighter coat produced by natural selection for camouflage on pale coastal sand dunes. Using genome-wide linkage mapping, we identified three chromosomal regions (two of major and one of minor effect) associated with differences in pigmentation traits. Two candidate genes, the melanocortin-1 receptor (Mc1r) and its antagonist, the Agouti signaling protein (Agouti), map to independent regions that together are responsible for most of the difference in pigmentation between subspecies....
Now, give us your technical reasons why you think that the conclusions of these biologists are wrong. Support any claims you make with references to the relevant research.
You've now made 26 posts in this thread. When are you going to start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?
You've now made 27 posts in this thread. When are you going to start "logically and systematically" debunking selection?
At the very least, try to show us that you understand what "selection" means in biology. There's nothing in your posts so far that suggests that you do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Davidjay, posted 05-09-2017 9:41 AM Davidjay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2017 12:52 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 120 of 323 (808274)
05-09-2017 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by RAZD
05-09-2017 12:52 PM


Re: Start talking about biology.
RAZD writes:
But if he did that he would no longer have to troll the post with spam and making false statements just to get a response
I suggest everyone takes my approach. Show him some evidence for positive selection, linking to the research, and ask him to give a technical explanation of what's wrong with it:
Take your pick, folks
Then ask, and ask, and ask.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2017 12:52 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2017 3:07 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 124 of 323 (808296)
05-09-2017 7:58 PM


Of Moths, Mice and Men
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
quote:
Our analysis indicates that positive selection on pigmentation variants associated with depigmented hair, skin, and eyes was still ongoing after the time period represented by our archaeological population, 6,500—4,000 y ago. This finding suggests that either the selection pressures that initiated the selective sweep during the Late Pleistocene or early Holocene were still operative or that a new selective environment had arisen in which depigmentation was favored for a different reason.
The high selection coefficients estimated for pigmentation genes HERC2, SLC45A2, and TYR are best understood in the context of estimates obtained for other recently selected loci. Using spatially explicit simulation and approximate Bayesian computation, selection on the LCT -13,910*T allelewhich is strongly associated with lactase persistence in Europeans and southern Asianswas inferred to fall in the range 0.0259—0.0795 and to have begun around 7,500 y ago in the region between the Balkans and central Europe. However, another simulation-based study incorporating latitudinal effects on selection resulted in a lower estimate of S (0.008—0.018). The selective advantage of the G6PD A− and Med deficiency alleles conferring resistance to malaria have been estimated at 0.019—0.048 and 0.014—0.049, respectively, in regions where malaria is endemic (39). These alleles are estimated to have arisen 6,357 y ago and 3,330 y ago. Thus, the estimates of S for the three pigmentation genes examined in this study are comparable to those for the most strongly selected loci in the human genome.
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.
*Probably that the selection was going on right through the flood and the complete genocide of the population concerned.

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 9:21 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 143 of 323 (808458)
05-10-2017 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 9:21 AM


Re: Of Moths, Mice and Men
Davidjay writes:
Blue genes,
Skin, eye color and hair, still doesnt change skin into non skin, or eyes into ears, or hair into scales.
Did you mean to say: Changes in skin, eye and hair color don't mean that there have been changes from skin into non-skin, or eyes into ears, or hair into scales?
If so, that's trivially true, certainly.
Does that mean you agree with the evidence in the paper for positive natural selection taking place for colouring in Europeans, or that you disagree?
David writes:
The moth colour change is hardly the missing link evolutionists so want to show as proof of their evolutionary theory.
Of course not. It is just an example of natural selection occurring in the wild, one of many that shows us that natural selection is a real phenomenon, and therefore that its existence can't be "logically and systematically" debunked.
Davidjay writes:
Its just a different color, an adaption ability given by the Lord at Creation...
Actually, the mutation can be dated to long after the species came into existence.
Davidjay writes:
You must show us some men evolving....
That's exactly what the paper I linked to did show. Humans, like other organisms, are always evolving.
Davidjay writes:
.....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
Don't you like the idea of rabbits being magicked out of a hat? Isn't ex nihilo creation your thing?
If you are going to "logically and systematically" debunk the readily observed creative processes of mutation and selection, surely you should be showing us that rabbits and other modern organisms can be created ex nihilo, or some other alternative to the view favoured by biologists, shouldn't you?
So, you've made more than 30 posts on the thread now. When are you going to start "logically and systematically" debunking selection? When are you going to pull that rabbit magically out of an empty hat?
Blue genes*
*positively selected

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 9:21 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 152 of 323 (808632)
05-11-2017 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by CRR
05-11-2017 6:09 PM


Information thread?
CRR writes:
Mutations can be selected for and fixed in populations but are they information adding? Human adult lactose tolerance is an example of a mutation that has spread but has not increased genetic information. Nylonase is another example where natural selection has fine tuned an existing enzyme to improve its activity on nylon.
If a group of organisms can acquire a novel function without added "information", then "information" wouldn't be required for Darwinian evolution, would it?
However, if you'd like to start a thread claiming that mutation and selection cannot increase information, do go ahead. I'll expect you to show that dulication, subfunctionalization, neo-functionalization, and sub-neo-functionalization can't happen, and you should enjoy doing that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 6:09 PM CRR has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 189 of 323 (808818)
05-13-2017 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Davidjay
05-13-2017 7:50 AM


Time to start the impossible debunking
Davidjay writes:
The question is what magical mutations have happened in human babies, that make them different from original babies?
None. No magic. Mutations are common, natural, physical things. All human babies are born with some.
Davidjay writes:
Or as desperate evolutionaries HERE chatted away for so long about, why do you think color shows there has been evolutionary change ? Why do you think black babies are different than white babies........
They produce more melanin because tropical climates positively select for that characteristic, and did so in their ancestors. It's good protection against ultraviolet rays. Such environmental influences have been known by the phrase "natural selection" since 1859. Such phenomena are a rather obvious and readily observed reality which you're supposed to be debunking.
Davidjay writes:
do you really think or believe that blacks are different than whites ?
By definition. You've just defined two groups with different adjectives, then asked if they're different.
Davidjay writes:
Otherwise I win again
David, darling, instead of flattering yourself, after ~40 posts, why don't you start "systematically and logically" debunking "selection". You haven't yet demonstrated that you understand the use of the term in biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Davidjay, posted 05-13-2017 7:50 AM Davidjay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Davidjay, posted 05-14-2017 10:19 AM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 209 of 323 (808940)
05-15-2017 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by CRR
05-14-2017 8:09 PM


Re: Does the theory of evolution require a gain of information?
CRR writes:
Conclusion: The Theory of Evolution;
Has a direction. It is attempting to explain microbes to man, not the reverse
Requires the development of multicellularity, specialised tissues, organs, and complex body plans
This development requires the production of new genes and genetic information; in copious quantities
I've already suggested a new information thread at least once. I'm looking forward to it, and finding out the technical reasons you think that evolutionary processes cannot increase information, if that is what you think.
Shall I start it, or will you?
I agree that genetic information would have massively increased since the origin of life, however difficult it is to quantify.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by CRR, posted 05-14-2017 8:09 PM CRR has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 210 of 323 (808941)
05-15-2017 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Davidjay
05-14-2017 10:19 AM


Better a bat than batty
Natural Selection in Bats
quote:
Abstract
Bat flight poses intriguing questions about how flight independently developed in mammals. Flight is among the most energy-consuming activities. Thus, we deduced that changes in energy metabolism must be a primary factor in the origin of flight in bats. The respiratory chain of the mitochondrial produces 95% of the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) needed for locomotion. Because the respiratory chain has a dual genetic foundation, with genes encoded by both the mitochondrial and nuclear genomes, we examined both genomes to gain insights into the evolution of flight within mammals. Evidence for positive selection was detected in 23.08% of the mitochondrial-encoded and 4.90% of nuclear-encoded oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) genes, but in only 2.25% of the nuclear-encoded nonrespiratory genes that function in mitochondria or 1.005% of other nuclear genes in bats. To address the caveat that the two available bat genomes are of only draft quality, we resequenced 77 OXPHOS genes from four species of bats. The analysis of the resequenced gene data are in agreement with our conclusion that a significantly higher proportion of genes involved in energy metabolism, compared with background genes, show evidence of adaptive evolution specific on the common ancestral bat lineage. Both mitochondrial and nuclear-encoded OXPHOS genes display evidence of adaptive evolution along the common ancestral branch of bats, supporting our hypothesis that genes involved in energy metabolism were targets of natural selection and allowed adaptation to the huge change in energy demand that were required during the origin of flight.

Batula
Davidbat writes:
Re:Answer the question, Are babies different now than before..
As per usual, evolutionists run when asked a question, because they know they cant answer it ?
I repeat, Re:Answer the question, Are babies different now than before.
Yes.
Davidbatty writes:
What new beneficial mutations have occured that make us different than our ancestors babies, I mean our human ancestor babies.
Here's a few for you to start with:
Genome-wide detection and characterization of
positive selection in human populations
If you disagree with those researchers on the subject of positive selection in humans, give us the technical reasons why.
Now, when are you going to start "logically and systematically" debunking the obvious reality of selection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Davidjay, posted 05-14-2017 10:19 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 212 of 323 (808946)
05-15-2017 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Admin
05-15-2017 7:38 AM


we will wait, and wait, and wait.....
Admin writes:
This thread is for Davidjay to debunk selection.
And he'll be commencing shortly after hell freezes over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Admin, posted 05-15-2017 7:38 AM Admin has seen this message but 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