Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 4:10 AM
23 online now:
Pressie (1 member, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 46 of 104 (23491)
11-21-2002 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by peter borger
11-19-2002 11:32 PM


Just a few comments:

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
In the paradigm of the MPG such bottlenecks are less relevant, since all information is already present in the genome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Page: What is the evidence that all of this information is already present? Please provide some evidence, perhaps from the Human Genome.

PB:1) genetic redundancies having no association with gene duplication and no correlation with mutation rate, 2) jumping DNA elements affecting gene expression, 3) the human genome demonstrates approx 40000 genes, 90% with unknown function (a lot of redundancies included, I expect from MPG).


Speculation all.

quote:

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, mutations can be introduced rapidly through non-random (directed) mechanisms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Page: Please provide the evidence that such mechanisms exist.

PB: Already discussed the 1G5 gene, and the mtDNA in ancient humans. They demonstrate both random and non-random mutations. Randomness with respect to nucleotide and position. Not yet proven is non-randomness as a response to the environment (when?).


So that is a zero.

quote:

Page: Please also demonstrate why the following article does not demonstrate that 'directed mutations' are not what they are claimed to be:

******************************************

Amplification-mutagenesis: evidence that "directed" adaptive mutation and general hypermutability result from growth with a selected gene amplification.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002 Feb 19;99(4):2164-9

Hendrickson H, Slechta ES, Bergthorsson U, Andersson DI, Roth JR.

Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.

When a particular lac mutant of Escherichia coli starves in the presence of lactose, nongrowing cells appear to direct mutations preferentially to sites that allow growth (adaptive mutation). This observation suggested that growth limitation stimulates mutability. Evidence is provided here that this behavior is actually caused by a standard Darwinian process in which natural selection acts in three sequential steps. First, growth limitation favors growth of a subpopulation with an amplification of the mutant lac gene; next, it favors cells with a lac(+) revertant allele within the amplified array. Finally, it favors loss of mutant copies until a stable haploid lac(+) revertant arises and overgrows the colony. By increasing the lac copy number, selection enhances the likelihood of reversion within each developing clone. This sequence of events appears to direct mutations to useful sites. General mutagenesis is a side-effect of growth with an amplification (SOS induction). The F' plasmid, which carries lac, contributes by stimulating gene duplication and amplification. ,b>Selective stress has no direct effect on mutation rate or target specificity, but acts to favor a succession of cell types with progressively improved growth on lactose. The sequence of events--amplification, mutation, segregation--may help to explain both the origins of some cancers and the evolution of new genes under selection.

PB: Most importantly, it involves a DNA region that is PREEXISTING in these bacteria.


That has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the mutations involved were non-random. Red herring noted.

quote:

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2) The second problem is the DNA dating analysis [see my comments on mtDNA --> 10 mutations/62000 years in human, 24 in chimps (5-10.000.000 years) and 27 in neanderthaler (500.000 years), and see the ZFY region in human/primates]. In conclusion, DNA dating analysis are not accurate, and are probably not even valid. They are always calibrated subject paleontological data, and/or with respect to interspecies comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Page: Please explain then how molecular dating techniques (not global clock) are congruent with fossil data. Coincidence?

PB: They are not. Have a look at the species comparison of the ancient mtDNA. Chimp 24 differences with a human reference sequence, Neanderthaler 27 differences (or 23 or 28 depending on the specimen studied). Furthermore, it depends on the sequence one studies.


Indeed.
[hoping this reproduces properly]
This is from my dissertation:

*****************************************************************
Estimates of Branching-Times Within the families Cercopithecidae and Hominidae
Branch-Point Local Clock DNA-DNA Hybridization Fossil Based
Clock Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Colobinae - 15-14 Ma 14 Ma ~12-14 Ma Cercopithecinae

Asian – 10- 9 Ma 10 Ma ~12-13 Ma African Colobines

Nasalis - 6-5 Ma n/a ~3-4 Ma
Trachypithecus

Cercopithecini - 10-9 Ma 10 Ma ~9 Ma Papionini

Macaca - 8 Ma 7 Ma ~7-8 Ma rest of Papionini
n/a

Hylobatini – 17-18 Ma 16 Ma 14 Ma
Hominini

Homo – Gorilla 6-10 Ma 8 Ma 8 Ma

Homo(Homo) – 5- 6 Ma 6 Ma 6 Ma Homo(Pan)
*****************************************************************

The local clock calculations were done using the dataset I have linked to.

Yeah, just coincidence, I suppose...

quote:

quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is: the evolutionary paradigm allows for interspecies comparison, while the MPG doesn't (for obvious reasons). If for instance only WITHIN species comparisons are carried out we find completely distinct dates for human origin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Page: Citation please?

PB: From the mtDNA in ancient humans and primates (PNAS 2001, vol98, p537-542). It demonstrates a common ancestor 150.000 BP (or non-random mechanisms).


You know, its funny. I just downloaded that paper and there is nothing even remotely indicated that your 'interpretation' is based in reality. Indeed, the date of 150,000 years does not even appear in the paper, but it is clear that the ancestor being mentioned is not the LCA of chimps and humans.

I do suggest that your zeal to be 'right' has clouded your ability to think straight. This is a clear misrepresentation of that paper.

Unless you are citing the wrong one - this is the Adcock et al. paper, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by peter borger, posted 11-19-2002 11:32 PM peter borger has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3206 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 47 of 104 (23499)
11-21-2002 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by derwood
11-21-2002 8:44 AM


I am not going to put my arm in the mouth of fish.. but. there seems to be a difference of approach IN HISTORY between the darwinists since Aggasiz and the the interest that say Mendel displayed with regard to "domestic" species. If one concentrates on the INVARIANCE in the variance may not?? be the same thing as variability of the variance but even to get here one must be able to reduce the error to a discussable amount that is agreed on not to disburb the correspondence yet this does not seem to be happening here.??

Dont know. only worth 2cents the above is at least as thick as a dime. I judge not. Brad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by derwood, posted 11-21-2002 8:44 AM derwood has not yet responded

    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3029 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 48 of 104 (23503)
11-21-2002 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Quetzal
11-19-2002 2:53 AM


quote:
You have utterly failed to explain how the homogenizing action of inbreeding depression ("bottleneck") actually creates diversity

I never said this “creates” diversity. In fact, if you recall I corrected Mamuthusus when he denied genetic information was lost due to bottlenecks (he later recanted, claiming I misunderstood him). What I said is bottlenecks & drift is a process that helps “realize” the already inherent diversity. If you don’t understand the difference between “create” and “realize” there is no point debating this further. I can only say that blue = blue for so long.

quote:
Your dog example is spurious - they remain the same kind, after all, and their diversity is nowhere near fully "realized" (if I understand whatever the hell that means)

It is obvious you do not know what “realize” means, and it has led you to erect a strawman. You guys are on a role on this board with these assemblages of straw. I also did not say dog diversity was “fully realized” via breeding (which I pointed out emulates bottlenecks). In fact I completely agree with your sentence above (beginning at “they remain”, of course).

quote:
why haven't new species of cheetahs and elephant seals been produced before our very eyes? After all, you're the one who's claiming that bottlenecks produced lots of new species from the Flood. This IS your mechanism, right?

It is one mechanism that has surely produced new species, we have observed it. I remind you that species is a man-made, subjective term. I have debated some biologists who say that merely isolating a population can qualify the isolated group as a new species. Consider that there are at least 32 species of bats. Each species could easily be the result of population isolation (pseudo-bottleneck) from a parent population (bat “kind”).

quote:
(per your request to address this from the “Intelligent Design Debate Continues” thread)
Q: …there are approximately 1.4 million identified living species…Based on biodiversity studies, there may in reality be as few as 10 million…Please provide evidence, of any kind, or even a decent explanation, of how the observed mechanism of random mutation etc caused 18,000 kinds to became 10 million in 4500 years

You are making false assumptions. We first must consider only the “kinds” that were required to be on the ark. We are not required to account for all the species of algae, fungi, insects, fish, mollusks, etc. (note that there are almost a million catalogued species of insects/spiders!). To compare apples to apples, I will compare the number of estimated kinds (which is based on known species) to the number of catalogued species required to originate on the ark. My source for species is:

http://www.wri.org/wri/biodiv/f01-key.html#number

4,000 Mammals
4,184 Amphibians
6,300 Reptiles
9,040 Birds

The total number of species that would have had to originate on the ark is 23,524. As you can see, it is entirely reasonable to achieve 23K species from an original 18K kinds over the period of 4000 years! It only requires 1.3 species per each “kind”. As I mentioned earlier, there are over 32 bat species, at least a dozen rabbit species, etc. It appears the 18,000 "kind" estimate is likely too high.

“Problem” solved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Quetzal, posted 11-19-2002 2:53 AM Quetzal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Randy, posted 11-21-2002 2:32 PM Fred Williams has responded
 Message 56 by derwood, posted 11-21-2002 8:56 PM Fred Williams has responded
 Message 61 by Mammuthus, posted 11-22-2002 3:28 AM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Quetzal, posted 11-22-2002 3:42 AM Fred Williams has responded

    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3029 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 49 of 104 (23510)
11-21-2002 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Mammuthus
11-19-2002 3:43 AM


quote:
M: It is funny that in the post above you claim that all examples that require a substantive answer from you to support your claims you dismiss as irrelevant..and you wonder that people don't take you seriously....as to inablility to engineer retrotransposons...we do it all the time ...read up, learn, then debate.

Don’t worry Mams I stopped taking you seriously after your debacle with your random mutation strawman (even the posts’ originator realized his error; only you remain a lone hold-out to your incredible illogic).

quote:
M: You are making subjective and qualitative statements on what is interesting with regards to diversity...inbreeding does not release "captive" variation. A severe bottleneck would leave you with a four of hearts and no deck of cards...hardly "realized" diversity.

As I have always stated, the resulting bottlenecked population has indeed likely lost genetic information from the parent population. It took several posts before you would come right out and agree with this after you had originally claimed cheetahs had not suffered genetic loss (BTW, in case you missed it, I also provided per your request a reference from a researcher who agrees that cheetahs likely have lost genetic segments). What you refuse to understand is this vein of the argument is that the entire deck of cards still exists as long as the parent population still exists. Bottlenecking a portion of that population, and subjecting it to subsequent selection may cause some diversity to be “realized”, not “created”.

quote:
By the way, none of this helps explain why there is no evidence of bottlenecks in ALL species that would have to have occurred if the ark myth were true...yet another bible killer that you ignored.

Wow, big Bible-killer. See my post to Quetzal. To summarize, there are 23K species that would have been required to originate on the ark. Creationist estimates the total number of kinds to be around 16-18K (I apologize for my previous 30K number, I’m not sure where I saw that). That means roughly 1.3 species per kind is all that is needed in 4K years.

BTW, some day when you get a job perhaps you might realize the difference between "ignore" and "lack of time". One of the refreshing things about this board is that I've found that most of the evolutionist requlars here realize the difference. Why do you have trouble with this? Taking in too much of Page's canned rhetoric? Perhaps you too have less faith in your arguments, and thus turn to such empty complaints? Just checking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Mammuthus, posted 11-19-2002 3:43 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Mammuthus, posted 11-22-2002 3:22 AM Fred Williams has responded

    
Randy
Member (Idle past 4420 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 50 of 104 (23519)
11-21-2002 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Fred Williams
11-21-2002 12:38 PM


quote:
You are making false assumptions. We first must consider only the “kinds” that were required to be on the ark. We are not required to account for all the species of algae, fungi, insects, fish, mollusks, etc. (note that there are almost a million catalogued species of insects/spiders!). To compare apples to apples, I will compare the number of estimated kinds (which is based on known species) to the number of catalogued species required to originate on the ark. My source for species is:

http://www.wri.org/wri/biodiv/f01-key.html#number

4,000 Mammals
4,184 Amphibians
6,300 Reptiles
9,040 Birds

The total number of species that would have had to originate on the ark is 23,524. As you can see, it is entirely reasonable to achieve 23K species from an original 18K kinds over the period of 4000 years! It only requires 1.3 species per each “kind”. As I mentioned earlier, there are over 32 bat species, at least a dozen rabbit species, etc. It appears the 18,000 "kind" estimate is likely too high.


Actually there are far more than 32 bat species. There are 18 families of bats and I think around 900 known species. There are 355 known species in the 42 genera of Vespertilionid Bats which represent just one family.

http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walkers_mammals_of_the_world/chiroptera/chiroptera.html

One problem with your numbers that you seem to be ignoring is that you need representatives of all the extinct "kinds" of land animals that ever lived on earth to be represented on the ark. I think this changes your numbers quite a bit and every time new extinct “kinds” are discovered it makes your problem worse.

BTW those million or so species of insects/spiders are a falsification of the global flood as well.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=40&p=2

Woodmorappe puts about 16,000 animals of 8,000 different kinds on the ark. Of course the idea that a 600 year old man and 7 family members cared for 16,000 of 8,000 different kinds of animals for a year on a big wooden boat during a global flood is totally absurd but that's another subject.

Randy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 12:38 PM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 4:33 PM Randy has responded

    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3029 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 51 of 104 (23531)
11-21-2002 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Randy
11-21-2002 2:32 PM


I suspected “ark lover” Randy would be popping in any moment!

[Last night I watched “Tombstone” with Kurt Russell for about the 50th time. Doc Holliday facetiously called one of the cowboys “music lover”, much as I use “ark lover” here! ]

quote:
Actually there are far more than 32 bat species. There are 18 families of bats and I think around 900 known species. There are 355 known species in the 42 genera of Vespertilionid Bats which represent just one family.

Thanks.

quote:
One problem with your numbers that you seem to be ignoring is that you need representatives of all the extinct "kinds" of land animals that ever lived on earth to be represented on the ark. I think this changes your numbers quite a bit and every time new extinct “kinds” are discovered it makes your problem worse.

My copy of Woodmorappe's book is at home, but I just found on the web that you are correct that his “kind” estimate is 8K, not 16K. Woodmorappe's number apparently also accounts for extinct kinds. Regardless, that means each original “kind” needs to account for only 3 species each. Let’s say I’m off substantially, by an order of 10. That means each “kind” still only needs to account for roughly 30 species (“sub-kinds”) each in 4K years. You have shown that bats alone account for 355 known species. I know there are also many species of mice. I think it should be quite evident to everyone that an average of between 3 and 30 species per original "kind" is quite feasible, and thus Quetzal’s argument is toothless.

quote:
Of course the idea that a 600 year old man and 7 family members cared for 16,000 of 8,000 different kinds of animals for a year on a big wooden boat during a global flood is totally absurd but that's another subject.

IMO Woodmorappe makes a solid case in his book why this is not absurd (even without invoking miracles). I agree that's another subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Randy, posted 11-21-2002 2:32 PM Randy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 11-21-2002 7:27 PM Fred Williams has responded
 Message 53 by Randy, posted 11-21-2002 7:35 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 104 (23558)
11-21-2002 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Fred Williams
11-21-2002 4:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

My copy of Woodmorappe's book is at home, but I just found on the web that you are correct that his “kind” estimate is 8K, not 16K. Woodmorappe's number apparently also accounts for extinct kinds. Regardless, that means each original “kind” needs to account for only 3 species each. Let’s say I’m off substantially, by an order of 10. That means each “kind” still only needs to account for roughly 30 species (“sub-kinds”) each in 4K years. You have shown that bats alone account for 355 known species. I know there are also many species of mice. I think it should be quite evident to everyone that an average of between 3 and 30 species per original "kind" is quite feasible, and thus Quetzal’s argument is toothless.


How much information gain might that entail? I am guessing a bunch. After all, if loss of diversity in the cheetah population is a loss of information, I am pretty confident that a kind giving rise to 30 species would involve a pretty hefty creation of new information. But then again, what do I know? I am not a Creationist. I am sure there is a nice, neat just so explanation for all of this.

FK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 4:33 PM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 7:38 PM Fedmahn Kassad has responded

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 4420 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 53 of 104 (23561)
11-21-2002 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Fred Williams
11-21-2002 4:33 PM


quote:

Fairy Tale Fred: IMO Woodmorappe makes a solid case in his book why this is not absurd (even without invoking miracles). I agree that's another subject.

I have the Woodmorappe book as well. It is a pretty remarkable collection of complete nonsense even for a YEC. The miracle is that anyone could take it seriously. I suspect that I have a lot more experience taking care of animals the he does since some of the things he says are real howlers and he makes some pretty elementary blunders. I hope to have time to write a post on it someday but there is so much wrong with it that it will take more time than I have right now. Maybe next year.
Randy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 4:33 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 11-21-2002 11:02 PM Randy has not yet responded

    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3029 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 54 of 104 (23562)
11-21-2002 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Fedmahn Kassad
11-21-2002 7:27 PM


quote:
How much information gain might that entail? I am guessing a bunch.

That would be a bad guess.

quote:
After all, if loss of diversity in the cheetah population is a loss of information,

Yes, and a new species. Catching on?

quote:
I am pretty confident that a kind giving rise to 30 species would involve a pretty hefty creation of new information.

I’m extremely confident it would not, because we have even observed the arrival of new species, all without any new genetic information. In fact, many are likely to be the result of lost genetic information. The cheetah is a great example!

BTW, I’m still waiting for any evidence that new genetic information has arisen naturalistically.

quote:

But then again, what do I know?

Obviously, very little!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 11-21-2002 7:27 PM Fedmahn Kassad has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 11-21-2002 8:30 PM Fred Williams has responded
 Message 57 by derwood, posted 11-21-2002 9:03 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 104 (23575)
11-21-2002 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Fred Williams
11-21-2002 7:38 PM


Well, that was an essentially content free post. It must be nice to make up this stuff as needed.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:
FK: After all, if loss of diversity in the cheetah population is a loss of information,

FW: Yes, and a new species. Catching on?



Yes, I am catching on that you just make your “facts” up as needed. So now your claim is that loss of genetic diversity RESULTED in the speciation of cheetahs? That seems to be a brand new claim. Previously, you stated that this loss occurred in the existing cheetah population. Which is it, and where’s your evidence?

quote:
FK:I am pretty confident that a kind giving rise to 30 species would involve a pretty hefty creation of new information.

FW: I’m extremely confident it would not, because we have even observed the arrival of new species, all without any new genetic information. In fact, many are likely to be the result of lost genetic information. The cheetah is a great example!


A great example of what? Loss of genetic diversity in an existing species? I agree. Creation of a new species due to loss of genetic diversity? This seems to be your claim, bit I have yet to see anything resembling evidence. Could we expect that this is forthcoming?

quote:
FW: BTW, I’m still waiting for any evidence that new genetic information has arisen naturalistically.

You have provided it yourself. Rapid speciation of many species from a single kind will by necessity require creation of a large number of new alleles. Since you previously said that loss of alleles in the cheetah population is a loss of information, gain of alleles from the original kinds to many new species is a gain. Or do you wish to treat us to more double standards?

quote:
FK: But then again, what do I know?

FW: Obviously, very little!


I know BS when I see it, and I see it. These kinds of arguments may work on the faithful, but most people can see right through your double speak.

FK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 7:38 PM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 12:51 PM Fedmahn Kassad has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 56 of 104 (23580)
11-21-2002 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Fred Williams
11-21-2002 12:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Consider that there are at least 32 species of bats. Each species could easily be the result of population isolation (pseudo-bottleneck) from a parent population (bat “kind”).

LOL!

No, Williams, there are over 900 species of bat.

No wonder creationism makes sense to layman - they have no idea what they are talkiing about from the get-go...

quote:
My source for species is:

http://www.wri.org/wri/biodiv/f01-key.html#number

4,000 Mammals
4,184 Amphibians
6,300 Reptiles
9,040 Birds


Is there any actual evidence for this (on the ark), or is it just cretin number games?

[This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-21-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 12:38 PM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 1:01 PM derwood has responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 57 of 104 (23582)
11-21-2002 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Fred Williams
11-21-2002 7:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:
How much information gain might that entail? I am guessing a bunch.

That would be a bad guess.

quote:
After all, if loss of diversity in the cheetah population is a loss of information,

Yes, and a new species. Catching on?


Please provide the documentation that there are new species of cheetah due to their bottleneck.

quote:

quote:
I am pretty confident that a kind giving rise to 30 species would involve a pretty hefty creation of new information.

I’m extremely confident it would not, because we have even observed the arrival of new species, all without any new genetic information.


Documentation please.

quote:

In fact, many are likely to be the result of lost genetic information. The cheetah is a great example!

See above. Sounds like the usual Williams ad hoc unsupported gibberish.

quote:

BTW, I’m still waiting for any evidence that new genetic information has arisen naturalistically.

I am still waiting for evidence that evolution requires it - at least as it is impklied by the likes of internet pseudogeniuses and experts. I am also still waiting for controlled lab experiments demonstrating Yahweh's creative abilities.
I would also settle for lab observations of information arising supernaturally


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 7:38 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5838 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 58 of 104 (23600)
11-21-2002 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by derwood
11-21-2002 8:44 AM


Dear Dr Page,

Before you reply have a look at the papers. The figure demonstrates a bonobo, a chimp, a Neanderthaler and (ancient) human. A lot of data go undiscussed. Like the common ancestor for chimp and human around 150 kyr BP. I recommend evolutionists not to show the raw sequence data anymore, since it immediately falsifies their own theories. Read the papers, otherwise, don't waste my time with.

Best wishes,
Peter

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-21-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by derwood, posted 11-21-2002 8:44 AM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by derwood, posted 11-22-2002 9:04 AM peter borger has responded

    
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 104 (23607)
11-21-2002 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Randy
11-21-2002 7:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
quote:

Fairy Tale Fred: IMO Woodmorappe makes a solid case in his book why this is not absurd (even without invoking miracles). I agree that's another subject.

I have the Woodmorappe book as well. It is a pretty remarkable collection of complete nonsense even for a YEC. The miracle is that anyone could take it seriously. I suspect that I have a lot more experience taking care of animals the he does since some of the things he says are real howlers and he makes some pretty elementary blunders. I hope to have time to write a post on it someday but there is so much wrong with it that it will take more time than I have right now. Maybe next year.
Randy


One of the biggest howlers is that he doesn't appear to know the difference between median and average. From his book:

"Since most of the animals were small, the median animal on the Ark was about the size of a rat. Only 15% of the animals were sheep-sized or larger (neglecting the taking of juveniles on the Ark), but it was the larger animals which accounted for most of the food intake and production of excreta.”

He goes on to say, “Because there have been so many arguments which allege the impossibility of eight people caring for so many animals, I delved into actual manpower studies on the time required to care for a given number of animals under various conditions. It turns out that simple labor-saving techniques could have enabled eight people to care for 16,000 rat-sized animals assuming the availability of only rustic tools, along with a 10-hour day, 6-day week, with time to spare.”

So we are led to believe that 8 people could care for 16,000 rat sized animals. The real problem with that kind of silly argument is that a pair of elephants, T-Rexes, and brontosauruses quickly increase the size of the average animal to much larger than a rat. There is an article somewhere at Talk Origins (I am too lazy to look it up) that used Woodmorappe's numbers and calculated the size of the average animal at almost 800 pounds. So instead of 16,000 rat sized animals, you really have 16,000 cow sized animals. I would say that would change up the manpower requirements by a considerable amount. But we are talking about Creationism here, so I am sure that there is a simple, evidence-free explanation.

FK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Randy, posted 11-21-2002 7:35 PM Randy has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 60 of 104 (23648)
11-22-2002 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fred Williams
11-21-2002 1:07 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]
quote:
M: It is funny that in the post above you claim that all examples that require a substantive answer from you to support your claims you dismiss as irrelevant..and you wonder that people don't take you seriously....as to inablility to engineer retrotransposons...we do it all the time ...read up, learn, then debate.

Don’t worry Mams I stopped taking you seriously after your debacle with your random mutation strawman (even the posts’ originator realized his error; only you remain a lone hold-out to your incredible illogic).

M: LOL! Nobody here takes you serious keyboard monkey You are a dim wit by even YEC standards...my random mutation "strawman" was to ask you to provide evidence for non-random mutations...but of course you have to call that a strawman because actually supporting your moronic assertions are impossible.

FW:
As I have always stated, the resulting bottlenecked population has indeed likely lost genetic information from the parent population. It took several posts before you would come right out and agree with this after you had originally claimed cheetahs had not suffered genetic loss (BTW, in case you missed it, I also provided per your request a reference from a researcher who agrees that cheetahs likely have lost genetic segments).

M: Hey stupido...actually read what I wrote before embarrassing yourself even further...YOU have not ONE SHRED of EVIDENCE (look that word up Fred, you don't know what it means) that Cheetah's today are 1) a different species from cheetah's pre-bottleneck 2) that they are missing whole segments of their genomes relative to others...you can stick you thum in you ear and keep re-iterating your nonesense but it is not becoming anymore compelling.

FW:
What you refuse to understand is this vein of the argument is that the entire deck of cards still exists as long as the parent population still exists. Bottlenecking a portion of that population, and subjecting it to subsequent selection may cause some diversity to be “realized”, not “created”.

M: LOL!!!!!! The cheetah's were down to one or two breeding pairs...the entire deck of cards was almost gone...same with elephant seals....You are playing without a full deck Fred.

FW:
Wow, big Bible-killer. See my post to Quetzal. To summarize, there are 23K species that would have been required to originate on the ark. Creationist estimates the total number of kinds to be around 16-18K (I apologize for my previous 30K number, I’m not sure where I saw that). That means roughly 1.3 species per kind is all that is needed in 4K years.

M: Though others have trounced this argument before I even logged on today....evidence for an Ark? What about all the extinct animals...you were wrong in your numbers of numbers of species for every group you posted so why would anyone take your estimates seriously? And last but not least...you did not answer the question..why don't ALL (not some not most) but ALL species on Earth evidence of a genetic bottleneck 6Kya?..Bible dead (if you are silly enough to take it literally).

FW:
BTW, some day when you get a job perhaps you might realize the difference between "ignore" and "lack of time".

M: I have two appointments..and niether of them involves changing lightbulbs or playing keyboard as a lounge act at the Holiday Inn. And if you don't have the time to support you stupid statements then keep yer trap shut.

FW:
One of the refreshing things about this board is that I've found that most of the evolutionist requlars here realize the difference.

M: Hmmm from the posts before mine most seem to indicate they think you don't know what you are talking about either.

FW:
Why do you have trouble with this? Taking in too much of Page's canned rhetoric? Perhaps you too have less faith in your arguments, and thus turn to such empty complaints? Just checking.

M: LOL! The absurdity of your unsupported assertions, handwaving, and X-files induced pseudoscience speculation only re-enforces my "faith" in my own arguments


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fred Williams, posted 11-21-2002 1:07 PM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 1:10 PM Mammuthus has responded

  
Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019