Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,582 Year: 2,839/9,624 Month: 684/1,588 Week: 90/229 Day: 1/61 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debunking the Evolutionary God of 'Selection'
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 55 of 323 (806320)
04-24-2017 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Davidjay
04-23-2017 9:32 AM


Re: Mutations dont make zebras run faster
Davidjay writes:
Magic mutations wont make a lion or lioness run faster or make a chateeh have the special running capabilities in a very COMPLEX backbone, eye combination that will help it catch prey.
No one is saying that magic mutations will make an animal run faster. We are saying that regular mutations can do that.
If you are claiming that changes in DNA can not cause animals to run faster, then please provide your proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Davidjay, posted 04-23-2017 9:32 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 56 of 323 (806321)
04-24-2017 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Davidjay
04-23-2017 11:26 AM


Re: BACK TO THE TOPIC !
Davidjay writes:
Yes, manipulative man made inbreeding, and inbreeding can cause superifical changes (and many negative ones), that even dumb evolutionists think is an example of mutational change.
Which evolutionist thinks that inbreeding is an example of mutation change?
Evolution is a racist doctrine.
There is already a thread on that topic.
Tangle, again color change is not evolution, nor a mutational change of significance, its called VARIATION in colour....as life selects life, and the colour change makes them more hidden than
the other colours (Color is American spelling, colour is British/Canadain spelling)
Why do you think humans and chimps are different from each other?
Do you accept the finding that humans and chimps are different from each other because the DNA sequence of their genomes is different?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Davidjay, posted 04-23-2017 11:26 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 57 of 323 (806322)
04-24-2017 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Davidjay
04-24-2017 12:17 PM


Re: Evolutionists cant defend their god of Selection
Davidjay writes:
Length of a leg is not a mutation, its a recombination.
Recombination of what?
Inbreeding of dogs, can produce longer legs in a new breed of dog, but it still remains a dog. They can inbreed short legs, hairy legs, etc etc... DONT YOU KNOW GENETICS, have you never studied anything.
I know from genetics that there are different alleles for the same gene due to mutations. Breeding through mixing of alleles works because mutations have produced those alleles. Variation wouldn't exist without mutations.
Leg length is not evolution it is recombination or inbreeding etc etc....
I really dont' see how those are mutually exclusive. Why can't evolution work through recombination of existing alleles, or mating between closely related individuals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Davidjay, posted 04-24-2017 12:17 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 58 of 323 (806323)
04-24-2017 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Davidjay
04-24-2017 11:48 AM


Re: Evolutionists cant defend their god of Selection
Davidjay writes:
Creation wins because it has answers,
So says the person who can't answer our questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Davidjay, posted 04-24-2017 11:48 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 62 of 323 (806331)
04-24-2017 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Davidjay
04-24-2017 11:33 AM


Re: Evolution Selection supposedly sustains life ? ?
Davidjay writes:
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.
First, we need to see if you understand the basics.
1. Do you agree that biological reproduction occurs?
2. Do you agree that offspring inherit DNA from their parents?
3. Do you agree that offspring are born with changes in their genome?
4. Do you agree that there is not an infinite amount of food for every individual and every species?
5. Do you agree that some individuals will have more offspring than others?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 63 of 323 (806332)
04-24-2017 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Davidjay
04-24-2017 11:42 AM


Re: Benefical Mutation probability is ZERO
Davidjay writes:
Chir, when the probability of a benefical mutation ever taking hold is ZERO in one generation,
Show me a single piece of evidence that a beneficial mutation has zero chance of being passed on to the next generation.
Recombination and variability within a kind is a probability
What you keep forgetting is that variability is due to mutations. Alleles are different because their DNA sequence is different. Mutations are differences in DNA sequence.
But no new kinds or species of mankind or animal kind has developed from so called beneficial mutations or even one beneficial mutation.
Then please explain how chimps and humans are the same kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Davidjay, posted 04-24-2017 11:42 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(3)
Message 69 of 323 (806382)
04-25-2017 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Phat
04-24-2017 8:25 PM


Re: Probability
Phat writes:
Probability is always measurable to a concrete degree, while chance is merely unproven theory.
We can prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that mutations are random with respect to fitness. This was done back in the 1940's and 1950's by people such as the Lederberg's, Luria, and Delbruck, the latter two of which won a Nobel prize in part because of their work on mutations.
What they found is that mutations conferring antibiotic or bacteriophage resistance occurred when there was no antibiotic or bacteriophage around. Those mutations were just clicking away in the background without any meaningful connection to what the organism may need or not need in a given environment.
For the purposes of the theory of evolution, this is the only context we need in order to model evolution. Mutations are said to be random because there is no meaningful connection between the mutations that occur and the mutations that the organism needs. In another context, the outcome of a throw of dice is not influenced by which numbers the thrower needs. When you play craps, the odds of rolling a 7 are not influenced by where the chips are on the table. The roll of the dice is random with respect to the bets in the same way that mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Phat, posted 04-24-2017 8:25 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 89 of 323 (806442)
04-25-2017 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Davidjay
04-25-2017 11:42 AM


Davidjay writes:
Variability is an excuse by evolutionists to try and give evolution credibility.
Variability is produced by mutations. Natural selection causes certain variations to be more common or less common in a population.\
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
We do get new species through the accumulation of mutations over several generations.

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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(3)
Message 91 of 323 (806444)
04-25-2017 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Davidjay
04-25-2017 1:56 PM


Re: Inbreeding brings variety not a new species
Davidjay writes:
The Lord limits it, and reality shows it as their has never ever been a beneficial mutation.
All you need to do in order to find beneficial mutations is compare the human and chimp genomes. Among those DNA differences are the beneficial mutations for both the chimp and human lineages.
But thanks for admitting that you think variability is a mutational change, and want to fight to the hilt on that premise.
If variation is not caused by DNA sequence differences between alleles, then please explain what does cause it.
What makes you blood type A, B, or O? It comes down to the DNA sequence of your hemoglobin genes. Mutations are what produce different alleles of the same gene.
I repeat, I repeat inbreeding does not produce a new dog species.
You are shifting the goal posts. We are talking about natural selection, not speciation.
Recombination brings on variety but it never ever has produced a new species.
Recombination brings on variety because it mixes and matches different mutations.
Mutations, kill, radiation kills, cancer misreproduction kills......
Every human is born with around 50 mutations. Obviously, mutations don't kill. You are just lying again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Davidjay, posted 04-25-2017 1:56 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 107 of 323 (808152)
05-08-2017 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by CRR
05-04-2017 7:07 AM


Re: Ignorance of evolution processes and results
CRR writes:
Or in other words
So if "A" is dogs, then all the descendants are still members of the "dog" kind.
Yep. This is why biology has moved to cladistics, even if they have hung on to a few pieces of Linnaean taxonomy. In Linnaean taxonomy a branch of the tree breaks off and attaches elsewhere on the tree. For example, if we went back 20 million years we might consider a small group of species to be a Genus. After 20 million years we would consider them to be a Family with multiple Genera in that family. Since Linnaean taxonomy has Genera next to each other instead of evolving from one another this poses some serious problems since it requires a branch to break off and reattach lower down on the tree. Cladistics doesn't have this problem.
So once a dog, always a dog. Through time, dogs may become more diverse and cover many species. Over an even longer time period, dogs may be as diverse and as widespread as mammals are now. Afterall, at one point in history the mammals would have comprised a single species in one small group of reptiles that happened to have more complex teeth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by CRR, posted 05-04-2017 7:07 AM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2017 5:07 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(3)
Message 109 of 323 (808167)
05-08-2017 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by RAZD
05-08-2017 5:07 PM


Re: What can the future hold? Can the past tell us?
Any guesses? What limits on their evolution were imposed and how?
Equidae. The constraints put on their evolution are similar to other tetrapod lineages, such as constraints on basic body configurations established by embryonic development. For example, very similar structures will develop from the same pharyngeal arches. The head will be at one end, and the pooper at the other. Retina will be facing backwards. Forelimb is one bone, two bones, lots of little bones, and phalanges (from many to just one). Hindlimb is the same.
And even those are constraints and not impossible to change. Some features will be much easier to change than others. For example, it is easier to change the length of the humerus than it is to have two humeruses. There are probably genetic constraints as well, as described by molecular clocks and population genetics. You can only change genomes so fast, afterall.
At least those are the thoughts that come to my head when I hear "what limits on their evolution were imposed and how" . . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2017 5:07 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 05-09-2017 7:23 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 115 of 323 (808245)
05-09-2017 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Davidjay
05-09-2017 9:41 AM


Re: Learned behaviour is not added to our genes BREAK THROUGH
Davidjay writes:
Adaptions, instincts, behaviours all are given at conception, at creation and none of them are from what a species does in their life time.
Adaptations and instincts are given at conception. You do realize that physical adaptations and instincts are not learned behavior, right?
Environment does not, dictate mutations, and environment does not make new behaviours or give them new instincts or new knowledge at the birth of new generations.
However, the environment does determine which mutations and instincts are passed on. That is natural selection.
The God of Selection does not select beneficial mutations.....
That would be true. No deity is involved. Natural selection is responsible for passing on beneficial mutations.
It's about time that you realized that there is no God of selection, and that the process is entirely natural.
No behaviour changes because of magical mutations.
That's correct. Changes in instinctual behavior is due to natural mutations, not magical ones.

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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 116 of 323 (808246)
05-09-2017 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Davidjay
05-09-2017 11:17 AM


Re: Creationism wins again....
Davidjay writes:
Nevertheless, as mentioned no behaviour gets passed on genetically that was not there in the original creation.
LEARNED behaviors do not get passed on. Instinctual behaviors do get passed on, as do physical adaptations.
and mutation and mutations have never effected the original (unless it kills it, as with radiation etc..)
If mutations don't affect function, then how do you explain the differences in physical adaptations between chimps and humans? Why do we look different from each other if it isn't due to a difference in DNA sequence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Davidjay, posted 05-09-2017 11:17 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 122 of 323 (808291)
05-09-2017 4:31 PM


Coat Color in Rock Pocket Mice
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...
In areas with black lava rocks you find the black pocket mouse. In areas with light brown dirt you find light brown mice. There is free interbreeding between the light brown and black mice, yet you still see this non-random distribution of coat color.
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.

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 127 of 323 (808343)
05-10-2017 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 9:21 AM


Re: Of Moths, Mice and Men
Davidjay writes:
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...
The topic is about natural selection, not missing links. We have now given you two examples of natural selection. Please address them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 9:21 AM Davidjay 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