Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2017 8:37 PM
335 online now:
Coragyps, Faith, GDR, Modulous (AdminModulous) (4 members, 331 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,780 Year: 21,386/21,208 Month: 1,819/2,326 Week: 274/881 Day: 99/97 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Author Topic:   Does the history of life require "macroevolution"?
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 106 of 127 (815217)
07-17-2017 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by CRR
07-15-2017 1:38 AM


Re: Simple Example
CRR writes:

Correct! Each created kind had the necessary genetic diversity to produce a number of descendants by partitioning and/or loss of genetic information.

Just as humans and chimps are in the primate kind, bears and humans are in the mammal kind, and fish and humans are in the vertebrate kind. Nice to see that you agree with the theory of evolution. There didn't need to be an increase in genetic information, as you define it, for all of these species to evolve from a common ancestor.

If we showed you every mutation in the human lineage that occurred after splitting from the chimp lineage, you would call each and every one of those a loss in information. And yet, humans evolved from ape-like ancestors anyway. Your definition of information is pretty meaningless when it comes to actual biology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by CRR, posted 07-15-2017 1:38 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 107 of 127 (815218)
07-17-2017 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
07-15-2017 5:36 PM


Re: Simple Example -- any new mutation is outside the kind?
Faith writes:

First such a mutation is so rare as to be nonexistent.

The 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps say otherwise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 07-15-2017 5:36 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 108 of 127 (815222)
07-17-2017 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by CRR
07-16-2017 6:58 PM


Re: Simple Example -- any new mutation is outside the kind?
CRR writes:

As my reply to RAZD shows mutations that increase diversity are not necessarily rare, but many of them are detrimental and even the beneficial ones are usually defects of some sort.

Of the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps, how many are defects of some sort?

What IS rare are the beneficial information adding mutations, Macroevolution, that would be essential for the proposed evolutionary history of life.

Of the 40 million mutations that separate chimps and humans, which, if any, do you consider an increase in information?

Evolution apologists need to show that sufficient macroevolution can take place during the time available to produce the changes required.

Apologists? Why do creationists continually try to make evolution look like a religion? To make it look as bad as creationism? Anyway . . .

With a mutation rate of 100 mutations per individual per person, a 25 year generation time, a constant population of 1 million, and 5 million years since diverging from a common ancestor, that is a total 20 x 10^12 (20 trillion) total mutations that have happened in the human lineage. We are only separated from chimps by 40 million mutations. If half of those mutations occurred in each lineage, that is just 20 million mutations that have to be selected for or kept through genetic drift. That is just 0.001% of the total number of mutations that did occur. Can you please tell me how the observed process of mutation could not produce these changes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by CRR, posted 07-16-2017 6:58 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by CRR, posted 07-18-2017 5:45 AM Taq has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 537
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 109 of 127 (815261)
07-18-2017 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Taq
07-17-2017 4:07 PM


Re: Simple Example -- any new mutation is outside the kind?
Of the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps, how many are defects of some sort?

Of the millions of genetic differences that separate humans and chimps I would expect most to be innate and some would be inherited defects accumulated over the last 6000 years.

If however humans and chimps are assumed to have a common ancestor ~7 million years ago then the hundreds of non-homologous genes would either be an increase in information or losses from the genome of the common ancestor. Since it is unlikely that so many genes could have been produced and fixed in the evolutionary time available the common ancestor must have had a super-genome with hundreds more genes than either the chimp or human today. Massive devolution is indicated.

With a mutation rate of 100 mutations per individual per person, a 25 year generation time, a constant population of 1 million, and 5 million years since diverging from a common ancestor, that is a total 20 x 10^12 (20 trillion) total mutations that have happened in the human lineage.

You'll have to explain the maths to me. Dr Adequate came up with a quite different figure; you might want to discuss it with him. I had a discussion with him on this topic in another thread.

IF neutral theory and other assumptions of evolution are correct this potentially explains a large fraction of the point genetic differences.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Taq, posted 07-17-2017 4:07 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Pressie, posted 07-18-2017 6:30 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Taq, posted 07-18-2017 11:42 AM CRR has responded
 Message 114 by Coyote, posted 07-18-2017 11:59 AM CRR has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 537
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 110 of 127 (815267)
07-18-2017 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Taq
07-17-2017 3:27 PM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
Quite obviously, the 40 million genetic differences that separate chimps and humans make a big difference.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Taq, posted 07-17-2017 3:27 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Taq, posted 07-18-2017 11:43 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1714
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 111 of 127 (815270)
07-18-2017 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by CRR
07-18-2017 5:45 AM


Re: Simple Example -- any new mutation is outside the kind?
This one is just as funny.

CRR writes:

Of the millions of genetic differences that separate humans and chimps I would expect most to be innate and some would be inherited defects accumulated over the last 6000 years.

You forgot the effects of The Magic Fluddy inbetween.

After that, are chimps and bonobos and gorillas and orangutans and baboons and bush babies and lemurs all of the same "kind"?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by CRR, posted 07-18-2017 5:45 AM CRR has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 112 of 127 (815290)
07-18-2017 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by CRR
07-18-2017 5:45 AM


Re: Simple Example -- any new mutation is outside the kind?
CRR writes:

Of the millions of genetic differences that separate humans and chimps I would expect most to be innate and some would be inherited defects accumulated over the last 6000 years.

That's what mutations are, genetic differences. Are you saying that if a supernatural deity makes a change in a genome it won't cause any problems, but if the natural process of mutagenesis produces that exact same change it will cause problems?

If changing a genome at all will cause defects, as you claim, then it will cause problems no matter who or what is making those changes.

If however humans and chimps are assumed to have a common ancestor ~7 million years ago then the hundreds of non-homologous genes would either be an increase in information or losses from the genome of the common ancestor. Since it is unlikely that so many genes could have been produced and fixed in the evolutionary time available the common ancestor must have had a super-genome with hundreds more genes than either the chimp or human today. Massive devolution is indicated.

Where is your evidence that the mutations producing new reading frames could not be produced in that time frame?

CRR writes:

You'll have to explain the maths to me. Dr Adequate came up with a quite different figure; you might want to discuss it with him. I had a discussion with him on this topic in another thread.

I already explained the math in the previous post. It is simple arithmetic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by CRR, posted 07-18-2017 5:45 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by CRR, posted 07-18-2017 9:54 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 113 of 127 (815291)
07-18-2017 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by CRR
07-18-2017 6:05 AM


Re: Genes are more complex than that
CRR writes:

Quite obviously, the 40 million genetic differences that separate chimps and humans make a big difference.

Then creationists are lying when they say that mutations don't make a big difference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by CRR, posted 07-18-2017 6:05 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5944
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 114 of 127 (815295)
07-18-2017 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by CRR
07-18-2017 5:45 AM


Re: Simple Example -- any new mutation is outside the kind?
...accumulated over the last 6000 years.

Why do you specify "6000 years?"


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by CRR, posted 07-18-2017 5:45 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by dwise1, posted 07-18-2017 11:19 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply
 Message 117 by CRR, posted 07-19-2017 6:21 AM Coyote has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 537
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 115 of 127 (815312)
07-18-2017 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Taq
07-18-2017 11:42 AM


Re: Simple Example -- any new mutation is outside the kind?
That's what mutations are, genetic differences.

Only if you assume that all differences result from mutations. Most differences will have originated directly in each created kind. If God changes a genome then it won't cause genetic problems, like when God created Eve from Adam's rib. However the vast majority of mutations will be detrimental or neutral; genetic entropy.

Taq writes:

With a mutation rate of 100 mutations per individual per person, a 25 year generation time, a constant population of 1 million, and 5 million years since diverging from a common ancestor, that is a total 20 x 10^12 (20 trillion) total mutations that have happened in the human lineage.


Ah, I see. You're talking about the total number of mutations that could have occurred. Dr Adequate was talking about the number that could have been fixed by genetic drift. Hence the big difference.

According to Message 176 in 7 million years "the human genome should have accumulated about 18 million mutations, while the chimpanzee genome should have accumulated a similar number." These would be mostly point mutations.

For a number of reasons I argued that the number would actually be significantly smaller, perhaps half, although it remains at a similar magnitude. This applies only to neutral mutations and not to beneficial mutations under selection. For these the limit is ~1670 in 10 million years. While the number of human genes that have no chimp homologue is less than this we would also have to consider that a new gene is unlikely to arise in a single step. Particularly where a gene produces multiple proteins many steps would be required. In addition there would be mutations in the regulatory DNA to control how these genes are expressed. Furthermore any neutral intermediate steps will not be selected for and are likely to be lost through genetic drift. So I think there is good reason to believe that mutations could not have produced all the non-homologous genes within the evolutionary time frame.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Taq, posted 07-18-2017 11:42 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2914
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 116 of 127 (815318)
07-18-2017 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Coyote
07-18-2017 11:59 AM


Re: Simple Example -- any new mutation is outside the kind?
Why do you specify "6000 years?"

I do not doubt that CRR will ignore that question. Actually, I'm surprised that he said "6000 years" and not 10,000. Most YECs in the USA know that their "creation science" strategy depends on their false and deliberately deceptive claim of basing their claims "purely on science and having nothing to do with religion" (paraphrased). Saying "6000 years old" is a dead give-away that your reasons are purely religious, so they instead say "10,000 years" in order to be more deceptive. A furriner like CRR would not know better -- mind you, I am not familiar with the legal landscape in Australia concerning these matters; perhaps CRR could enlighten us about that.

Back in 1996 in a local creationist organization's newsletter, a local activist YEC published an article tracing the age of the earth according to the Bible. Many, myself included, have attempted that exercise, but most of us can get no further than the Flood. This article carried it further up to an actual historical event whose date was known independently of the Bible. Even though I do not agree with his conclusions nor premises, still I thought that it was a valuable example of such an exercise, so I reposted it on my site: ARE THERE GAPS IN THE GENEALOGIES IN DETERMINING WHEN ADAM LIVED?. An interesting read.

BTW, I'm sure that he copied it from somewhere else, but that does not matter.

Our dating systems are AD ("Anno Domini") and BC ("Before Christ"), but also CE ("Common Era") and and BCE ("Before Common Era") which are temporally equivalent to AD and BC but are for non-Christian consumption (eg, Jewish scholarship). This YEC employs a very useful system of AC ("After Creation"), useful since all the biblical dating is ultimately in reference to Creation and it isn't until later Cyrus the Persian that we can tie that dating system with BCE and so unify them.

In summary, here are this YEC's dates:

Creation -- 6202 years ago, 4185 BCE
Flood -- 1656 AC == 2529 BCE

But basically, 6000 years don't mean squat! The clock starts right after the Flood, at 2529 BCE! "Basic created kinds"? Don't mean squat until after the Flood at 2529 BCE! After all, the only reason the creationists ever came up with "basic created kinds" was to try to solve the problem of crowding all those different species into one teensy-weensy Arc. So whatever hyper-evolution may have happened before the Flood don't mean squat! Creationists have 1656 years less time to play with utilizing their hyper-evolution.

And then there's Baron Georges Cuvier, the "Father of Paleontology". I believe that he originated the practice of taking a single bone and extrapolating the entire animal from it -- far less of a reach than you may think.

He was also a staunch anti-evolutionist. Back in college (late 1980's verging on 1990) I personally read an English translation of his Théorie de la terre (Theory of the Earth). From his Egyptian Campaign (whose other contribution was to use the Sphinx' nose as artillery practice, thank you very much, Nappy!) Napoleon had brought back many Egyptian artifacts, including a large number of mummies of both humans and animals. Those mummies dated back to thousands of years BCE; according to Wikipedia, the oldest animal mummies date back between 5500–4000 BCE, well before the Flood (https://en.wikipedia.org/...d_non-human_animal_mummification).

The problem for him was that he was still a young-earther. So he looked at the mummies from thousands of years ago, very shortly after creation by his reckoning, and he looked at the same modern animals and he saw virtually no change at all. Therefore he deemed evolution to be impossible.

So, then, CRR doesn't actually have 6000 years to play with, but rather about 4546 years. But not even that much, since Baron Georges Cuvier firmly established that by thousands of years BCE all the animal species had been fully evolved.

Instantaneous evolution??? Is that the creationist solution? Well, that is the only bullshit that you are feeding us at this time.

Very early on, I heard a presentation which stated that a single speciation event required about 50,000 years. I cannot tell you what that could have been based on. But the creationist model of near-instanteneous evolution over multiple taxonomical levels is .... mind-blowing.

No, absolutely ridiculous!!!!


ABE:

Of course creationists will try to explain away their near-instantaneous evolution by claiming that the original basic created kinds had been created with incredible amounts of genetic variability.

The problem with that is that that genetic variability would have been all used up long before the Flood. Remember, the Flood happened 1656 years after Creation.

Also remember that the only reason for that entire "basic created kinds" and its associated near-instantaneous evolution is to be able to get all those animals onto the Ark. So the fact that the near-instantaneous evolution would have happened very shortly after Creation and more than a millennium before the Ark renders that entire line of claims moot and utterly useless.

Edited by dwise1, : ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Coyote, posted 07-18-2017 11:59 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by caffeine, posted 07-19-2017 4:33 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
CRR
Member
Posts: 537
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 117 of 127 (815330)
07-19-2017 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Coyote
07-18-2017 11:59 AM


Re: 6,000 years?
How does the Bible teach 6,000 years? http://creation.com/6000-years
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Coyote, posted 07-18-2017 11:59 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Coyote, posted 07-19-2017 9:36 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 119 by herebedragons, posted 07-19-2017 10:14 AM CRR has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5944
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 118 of 127 (815338)
07-19-2017 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by CRR
07-19-2017 6:21 AM


Re: 6,000 years?
How does the Bible teach 6,000 years? http://creation.com/6000-years

You tell me, don't argue with bare links.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by CRR, posted 07-19-2017 6:21 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1373
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 119 of 127 (815344)
07-19-2017 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by CRR
07-19-2017 6:21 AM


Re: 6,000 years?
How does the Bible teach 6,000 years? http://creation.com/6000-years

I don't think anyone is unaware of how the date of 6,000 years is calculated... we have all seen the numbers. So posting a link to this article hardly addresses the question posed.

First of all... the main point was that in the context of the discussion, mutations have only been accumulating since the flood, the flood reset the population structure, or at least that is the question being posed; why do you say mutations have been accumulating for 6,000 years not for only the 4,500 years since the flood.

But I see a deeper problem with your link; it is expressed in a statement from the article.

quote:
We can be confident that God’s Word is accurate in its historical details...

Well, the question is... "How can we be confident in the accuracy of the historical details?" Of course, we verify them through physical and historical evidence. And what do we find? Nope. Not very historically accurate. The dates of events don't always line up; evidence shows the age of the creation is much, much older; there is no evidence of a global flood 4,500 years ago; etc... So to claim that we can be confident in the total accuracy of the historical narrative in the Bible is not independently verified and instead relies on presumed accuracy. Those two ideas are completely different and to describe 'presumed accuracy' as 'verified accuracy' is deceptive.

The other problem is:

quote:
In fact, what we believe about God is based on historical claims, so if the history is inaccurate, then the theology must be as well!

This is a major leap in logic as well as a major presumption about the purpose of the Bible; how the content was preserved and passed down through the generations; and how it was intended to be understood by the original audiences. The Bible is a collection of stories told to describe the character of God and his relationship with mankind. I fail to see how the historical accuracy is relevant to the lessons the stories are intended to convey. One need only look to Jesus and his ministry to see this. Jesus taught primarily in parables... does the truth of what Jesus taught in parables depend on the historical accuracy of the parable? No, certainly not.

The typical response to this is that it is obvious that Jesus was speaking in parables... well it's obvious to me that there is a lot of parable-like stories in the early chapters of Genesis.

A good example is when God told Adam that if he ate of the Tree of Knowledge he would die on the very day he ate of it. But did he? Nope, he didn't die. The typical response here is that God was talking about a spiritual death, or that the process of death would begin on that day. But look up the Hebrew word used for 'death' in Gen 2:17 and then find where that word is used elsewhere in the OT. It means 'death' just like we think of death, dead, die. Nowhere else is it used to indicate 'spiritual death' or the 'beginning of the process of death'. Those are apologetic explanations for why Adam and Eve didn't actually, physically die that very day like God promised. For those that require the story to be absolutely, historically accurate, they have to make a quick switch to 'parable-like phrase' when it turns out that Adam did not actually "historically" die on the day he ate of the fruit. (BTW, I actually accept the explanation that God meant they would be separated from Him - spiritual death - on the day they ate the fruit, but, then again, I do not require that the story be historically accurate, just that it teaches a lesson about God's character and our relationship with Him.)

So in order for the Bible to be "historically accurate," it takes boat-loads of apologetics to explain away inconsistencies and seeming inaccuracies (some internal, some external). There is no amount of inaccuracy that cannot be explained away through apologetics and thus maintain the illusion of "historical accuracy." So the statement that CMI should have made is:

"What we believe about God is based on historical claims, therefore, all claims about history made in the Bible must be reconciled and explained theologically so that those historic claims maintain their alignment with our beliefs about God and the historical accuracy of the Bible."

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : clarity

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.


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 117 by CRR, posted 07-19-2017 6:21 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by dwise1, posted 07-19-2017 10:34 AM herebedragons has responded
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 07-19-2017 12:16 PM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 124 by CRR, posted 07-19-2017 6:53 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2914
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 120 of 127 (815352)
07-19-2017 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by herebedragons
07-19-2017 10:14 AM


Re: 6,000 years?
One need only look to Jesus and his ministry to see this. Jesus taught primarily in parables... does the truth of what Jesus taught in parables depend on the historical accuracy of the parable? No, certainly not.

Remember also the reason for teaching in parables: to keep the audience from understanding what he was teaching. They were intended for those with ears to hear and eyes to see -- IOW, those initiated into those mysteries so that they understood the true meaning of the symbols and metaphors being used.

Certainly, taking a parable at face value as literally true would be extremely foolish. So if the rest of the Bible is in the same form as the other parables, then biblical literalism is a fool's errand in the extreme.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by herebedragons, posted 07-19-2017 10:14 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by herebedragons, posted 07-19-2017 11:24 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017