|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5051 days) Posts: 1 From: Austin, TX, US Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: You have 50 marbles. How many marbles do I have to take from you before you have a hundred?
quote: Since almost all evidences for microevolutionary change has been caused by genetic loss, I would argue the opposite, that micro evolution fights against macro evolution.
quote: I'm a firm believer in variation within a species as well (micro evolution).
quote: This is due to sexual reproduction. We are talking about the origin of new functional genetic information. You got the information from your parents. They got it from theirs, and so on. But where did it come from? For macro evolution to be true, all information must have a source. A period where, useful or not, a gene was formed by some process that contained useful information. Stay on topic, or GP so someone else can respond.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
quote: No. So dogs are neither evidence for "genetic loss" or "genetic gains". Fine with me, I just wonder why you said "Dog breeders do this to sell dogs with specific traits, but this results in genetic loss" but now your claiming "that all our traits have been here since God created us." So which is it?
Why would I try to argue your point? Where did I make a point? I asked questions, did you miss that point?
Since new genetic information is required to take bacteria to human over time. But none is needed to turn a Wolf into a Poodle? (or some such example of selective breeding) If all the information is present, how did you come to show this via evidence? If all the variety is via decay then how did you arrive at this conclusion?
You really don't get why it is impossible for the first bacteria to contain all the genetic information for all the diverse life today? At what point in my post did you incorrectly conclude it was about my opinions of science and not about yours? I asked questions, you can answer or not, but why pretend my post was about my opinions? I may or may not "get why its impossible", its not really the issue. I would like to know how you arrived at this conclusion, I know already how I arrived at it. So did you accept it blindly, just make it up, or do you have any supporting evidence?
I'll let someone else make fun of you. Thus far your doing a sad job, best leave it to someone else. Care to explain why you made an assertion and don't mind tossing out some ridicule while dodging my asking for supporting evidence? Did you just make it up perhaps?
Hahaha, you are funny to talk to. Here is the evidence: Oh good. You give me a quote about Darwin. Not a quote from Darwin, and not even a quote with any evidence. Interesting but not really what I asked for. I asked for you to show me the evidence that you have come to accept in our modern world and you give me an opinion of Darwins.
I'm not here to defend by beliefs at the moment. You can start another thread if you wish, but I'm too busy with the few thread I do post in. For now, I am interested in debating different aspects of evolution. You're not here to defend but you have no problem tossing out the assertions? Not very classy. I respect that you're too busy, the more incorrect or unsupported claims you toss into a post the more replies you will find to occupy your time. Thanks for clearing up a few minor points about your post, the major unsupported claims will just have to rest on your good name and fine character?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: Children are adopted from the foster care system (usually, unless a specific guardian is in mind).
quote: The fact that the child has been removed from their biological parents is what causes the impact, not their legal status in the system. You still haven't given me your statistics showing that 90% of foster children are still in communication with their parents regularily. I'm interested to know where you got that number from (since you know where I got all mine from, it seems fair).
quote: So you lied.
quote: quote: This source points to adoptees. and this one:
quote: quote: Some of the sources used are repeats, since they delt strictly with adoption, but you offered no response.
quote: You lost. You have not offered any evidence for the contrary, probably because you don't have any (other than your flyer, that only you can see). If the statistics are different between adoptees and foster children, please, so me. But you won't. You just prefer to ignore any sources that are perfectly valid, and respond with absolutely nothing but with your opinion...and your flyer. I almost forgot about your flyer. However, even if your magical flyer is real, the adoption issue is general, not specific to your household, or county. If everything is gravy where you live, then there are no more adoption problems? Wheres the logic? Or do you just care about you.
quote: Coming from someone who has done none, I find this really funny.
quote: How about you offer some references supporting your view, instead of offering up random flyers, and opinions. Whats the matter? Searched all day and came up with my information??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4599 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
I guess I have to be thankful that you were unable to sufficiently subdue your trolling to drag me further into this. But please have fun with the more ardent and hardened regulars here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote: Both. God created each animal after it's kind with enough genetic information to give us the variety we see today, and this information is slowly declining (generally speaking). And dog breeding is an example of genetic loss.
quote: Though I have no doubt in my mind that mutations did occur from wolf to poodle, no mutations are required.
quote: quote: Game. Set. Match.
quote: I don't know how you arrived at it, but I do not, and cannot believe that all the information for the diverse life seen today came from a single source of any kind. God created each animal, to reproduce after IT'S KIND. If what I believe is true, then each pair of species that went into the ark would have had the genetic diversity to explain the various species of organisms and animals alive today.
quote: I have lost track of what this is about, but if you remind me, I will gladly.
quote: I have no idea what you are talking about, since I do not support darwins theory of evolution (in that a species can change into a new, usually more complex species given enough time).
quote: Fine fine. Where do you want to start? But I'm keeping my current topics up ahead of this.
quote: Since you don't know me, it would be unwise to let what I say rest on my 'good character'. But since you offered no rebuttal to any of my claims, your next email will be left alone. I do my best to deal with those that are interested in arguing points of the topic, not those that are mad at my sources, but do not refute any claims made.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
Yup goodbye, whatever that means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dennis780 writes:
Do you agree that all modern domestic dogs are descended of wolfs? If so, does this mean that these ancestral wolfs had all the genetic information necessary to make all domestic dog breeds?
Both. God created each animal after it's kind with enough genetic information to give us the variety we see today, and this information is slowly declining (generally speaking). And dog breeding is an example of genetic loss.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
dennis780 writes: God created each animal after it's kind with enough genetic information to give us the variety we see today, and this information is slowly declining (generally speaking). Ah, the old Super-Genome nonsense. I assume you are familiar with Oetzi? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Thats funny. I never claimed to be a scientist, but I always research claims offered. I'm not asking you for "research" I'm asking you to explain what the hell you meant, because your statement as written is unintelligible.
What caused the mutations of nucleotides 3,6,9,12,15,etc. The same thing that causes mutations of nucleotides 1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11, etc. Mutations do not have the kind of specificity to attack the first and second base of a codon but ignore the third. I mean, surely you're aware that frameshift mutations are cyclic, right? That there are two ways to reverse them - reverse the indel or add another two to return to the original reading frame, minus or plus one additional residue? (the utility of Ames-strain bacteria for the detection of mutagenesis is based on this incredibly simple principle.) I mean, surely you wouldn't pop up here and not know what you were talking about, right? Maybe you should be researching some of your own claims, first?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Two experiments performed by different people should not yield similar results if genetic mutational gain is in fact, RANDOM. Not so. That's not what "random" means. For instance, rolling two dice and adding the result gives you a random number - this is the foundation of games of chance such as craps. Yet, if you have a dozen people each roll two dice a hundred times and chart the results, every single one of them will produce something akin to this graph: This is because "random" is not a synonym for "completely unreproducible." Frequently random results are very reproducible because the outcomes are probabilistic, as they are with mutation (same as with any chemical reaction.) Usually experiments to detect mutations - say, an Ames culture - are selecting for a specific mutation. That doesn't mean that other mutations aren't happening - we know for a fact that they are, because we're using mutagens that simply can't have that kind of specificity - but that we're combining that with selection against all but one specific kind of mutation, so that we can get a general rate of mutation. If there was no selection of any kind there would be no way to distinguish mutants from non-mutants.
Even an evolutionist will argue that a negative mutation that is passed on will put that group of organisms or animals at an evironmental disadvantage, and more than likely die off, since they are not as 'fit' as those that do not have a harmful mutation affecting some aspect of survival. But, of course, dead organisms don't pass on their genes. Dead organisms don't consume resources or occupy environmental niches (though they frequently are niches.) That means that populations of living organisms come to be dominated by the individuals who had mutations that increased, not decreased their fitness - they are, after all, the only ones left.
We are debating the SOURCE for new functional genetic code. The source is the same as new nonfunctional genetic code - random mutation. Since mutations are random they produce a mix of functional and nonfunctional new genetic code. Natural selection serves to weed out nonfunctional genetic changes from functional ones. Random mutation and natural selection is the source for functional genetic novelty and explains increases in complexity of organisms. The evidence for this is ample, has been given to you already, and was either not understood by you or simply ignored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: You have 50 marbles. How many marbles do I have to take from you before you have a hundred? A micro is change, not an addition or loss (although an addition or loss may cause that change). Each micro takes the individual farther from the original. It's like the old "telephone" game where one person gives a message to the next, and so on down the line. Eventually the message hardly resembles the original. That's what we are talking about here! Change. Eventually the population hardly resembles the original population. When those changes are significant, they can be called a macro although there was never a macro change all at once. The macro is only seen when looking at long time periods and in retrospect.
quote: Since almost all evidences for microevolutionary change has been caused by genetic loss, I would argue the opposite, that micro evolution fights against macro evolution. Nonsense! The macro is just a measure of change from the original population. In terms of human evolution it is not something that occurs from one generation to the next.
quote: I'm a firm believer in variation within a species as well (micro evolution). Glad to hear it, but that's a non sequitur again. And belief has nothing to do with science. Science deals with evidence. As is shown on these threads daily, when it comes to creationists, belief gets in the way of learning (as Heinlein noted).
quote: This is due to sexual reproduction. We are talking about the origin of new functional genetic information. You got the information from your parents. They got it from theirs, and so on. But where did it come from? For macro evolution to be true, all information must have a source. A period where, useful or not, a gene was formed by some process that contained useful information. No, all information does not need an ultimate source; each individual gets his "information" from his parents. That's all the source we need to understand evolution, because we are tracking change over time, not origins. And you ignored the point I made, in which I explained micros and macros. You seem to want some miraculous change, all at once or something, giving instant "new functional genetic information." Sorry, this comes in the form of a lot of micros, not as an instant macro.
Stay on topic, or GP so someone else can respond. Whatever. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
God created each animal after it's kind with enough genetic information to give us the variety we see today, and this information is slowly declining (generally speaking). If all organisms were programmed with the complete diversity of their "kind" (whatever that means) programmed into their genome during their creation as two individuals per kind, and that information is being slowly lost as time goes by, then it's very obvious what we should be observing - that species diversity should be declining across the board, as the diverse genomes within those kinds are slowly pruned. But what we see is the complete opposite - that species diversity increases over time, that genomes increase in information content due to random mutation and natural selection, and that two individuals of one diploid species can have at most a diversity of four alleles per gene amongst the two of them. So by simple observation we know that your position is false; the observations we make are of the exact opposite of a gradual decline from one expansive "supergenome." What we observe is most consistent with an evolutionary increase in species diversity due to random mutation and natural selection occurring over geologic time.
Though I have no doubt in my mind that mutations did occur from wolf to poodle, no mutations are required. Wolves are a diploid species so two wolves can, at most, have only four alleles per gene among them. That's not enough alleles to account for all the genotypes present within the Canis lupis familiaris subspecies. While it's known that the effect of breeder selection on the dog genome has been one of contraction of diversity and the fixation on various recessive traits by selection against the dominant phenotype, many of those alleles don't exist in wolves. They're present as a result of mutations specific to dogs.
I don't know how you arrived at it, but I do not, and cannot believe that all the information for the diverse life seen today came from a single source of any kind. The evidence for universal common ancestry is quite overwhelming. This evidence includes: 1) that all organisms use the same 20 basic amino acids, even though there are countless amino acids to choose from;2) that all organisms use either the same codon-substitution rules or a slightly-modified version of it, even though there's no reason that should be the case; 3) that all organisms use the same four deoxyribonucleotides and the same four ribonucleotides even though there's no reason they should; 4) that we can chart genetic paternity/maternity via 16s ribosomal subunit across every living species, at an incredible level of statistical significance, even though there's no other reason we should be able to do that; 5) genetic engineering is possible; organisms are so fundamentally compatible that we can take toxic genes from bacteria and insert them into plants, or jellyfish luminescence genes into monkeys; we can put any gene into any other organism and, reliably, it will produce precisely the same protein product there as it did before; and so on. There is more evidence for the common ancestry of all living and extinct organisms than for any other scientific proposition known to man; more evidence than there has ever been for any physical law, any medical diagnosis, any mathematical proof, or any finding of fact, guilt, or innocence by any court. Refusing to accept the ample evidence for universal common ancestry means closing your eyes to literally every field of science.
If what I believe is true, then each pair of species that went into the ark would have had the genetic diversity to explain the various species of organisms and animals alive today. But two organisms don't have the genetic diversity to explain even their own species, much less a handful of related genera and families creationists so haphazardly lump as a "kind." It's simply a genetic impossibility. Contrary to physical and chemical law. Therefore what you believe cannot be true. Diversity of population cannot increase to the extent that we observe it based simply on sexual recombination (and not at all in species that do not sexually reproduce), which proves that random mutation and natural selection is the source of the rest of the new information, and is the mechanism by which species diversify to such an extent that some of their members become a new species, altogether.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You have 50 marbles. How many marbles do I have to take from you before you have a hundred? None - you have to add marbles, just as random mutation and natural selection add functional information to an organism's genome.
Since almost all evidences for microevolutionary change has been caused by genetic loss "Almost"? So, you admit there's been some evidence for microevolutionary change that adds genetic information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
God created each animal after it's kind with enough genetic information to give us the variety we see today Perfect. Now would you kindly tell me how you arrived at this conclusion? You assert that bacteria do not have all the information present to make a human, but wolves do have all the information present to make every breed of dog. That's a testable statement. So I would expect that you arrived at this conclusion because someone tested it? Right? I don't mean that someone hasn't done a test (hasn't made a human from bacteria or a cat from a dog), I mean an actual test that produced results.
I have lost track of what this is about, but if you remind me, I will gladly. In message 288 you claimed that it was impossible for "the original bacteria on earth contained all the information required to form the diverse life today". I asked for supporting evidence. Not because I believe it to be true, but because I don't think you have evidence for any of your claims about "decay" or "information" or "kinds". I just figured if you could support that claim it would help for a baseline to all the other claims your making. (there you go, a reminder and a giveaway)
I have no idea what you are talking about I asked for evidence that beetles lost their wings or fish lost their eyes. You laughed at me and supplied a quote from a guy talking about an opinion that Darwin had. As if that is any sort of evidence at all. That is what I was talking about. Care to supply some evidence instead?
Fine fine. Where do you want to start? Beetles losing their wings, bacteria not having information, dogs losing information, and just for fun "kinds".
Since you don't know me, it would be unwise to let what I say rest on my 'good character'. But since you offered no rebuttal to any of my claims, your next email will be left alone. I do my best to deal with those that are interested in arguing points of the topic, not those that are mad at my sources, but do not refute any claims made. Your correct, your "good character" means nothing to me, I prefer the evidence. Feel free to start supplying it. I need not provide a rebuttal to your claims any more than I need to tell you that I enjoy hamburgers while asking you to explain why you like steak. You made the claims, I happen to have taken in interest in your supporting evidence. I have every intention of refuting your claims, wait and see. I plan to let you do all the refuting by not supplying reasonable evidence to support them. Now that I have given up my plan I hope we can carry on with showing you're wrong about evolution. Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Now wait. You claim that mutation is the source for new information. This is your claim. Now you need to support your claim with evidence. It is sufficient to support my claim by referring you to the meanings of the words "new", "information", and "mutation".
I can watch someone hotwire a car, does not mean that is the correct way for the engine to start, nor does it explain of everyone starts their cars this way, which they do not, since this is harmful to the car, damaging wiring components. It would, however, prove that it is possible to hotwire a car.
Nothing. Other than you still refuse to give evidence to support mutational evolution. This is, of course, untrue.
Explain what mutational processes can account for new information. The process known as "mutation". I think we can all agree that this is a mutational process.
But not that these new arrangements are useful, nor that this information was not from a previous source. The example and references I gave do in fact prove that.
What you have not argued is that any useful function comes about from these mutations. The example and references I gave do in fact prove that.
If you are talking about Micro evolution, you win. But new functional genetic information would be required for macro evolution. And as we can see, new functional genetic information is produced by mutation.
Loss or damage of any specific nucleotide sequences. Which did not occur.
You have given me sources for genetic change. In one case, you offered an experiment that was repeated with similar results. This is NOT evidence for random mutation, since the odds of any organism mutating similar to another, if in separate conditions is a huge impossibility. It's at long odds for any two given bacteria to undergo a mutation with similar effects. But what happens when you have lots of bacteria?
No one is claiming that all mutations are harmful, and anyone that does is silly. But the genetic material is due to a loss of information. Not, in these experiments, according to your definition of genetic loss, which involved a gene becoming non-functional. If you'd like to try another definition of "genetic loss", be my guest.
I read back in your posts (to some extent, I don't have all day), the experiment performed by different labs that yielded similar results is out. If random mutation is your claim for the origin of new genetic information, any such experiment would NOT yield the same results, unless the organisms themselves caused the change, in order to survive in harmful conditions of some kind. Random mutation should not be repeatable, since it is RANDOM. Like throwing a six. Once one person has done it, it can never be done again, because that wouldn't be "RANDOM". Of course, some people would say that it should happen one time in six, but I guess they don't have your deep and penetrating insight into everything.
If random mutation is your claim for the origin of new genetic information, any such experiment would NOT yield the same results, unless the organisms themselves caused the change, in order to survive in harmful conditions of some kind. Does the unevidenced, impossible method by which the bacteria achieve this include a faculty of precognition? Only it is demonstrably the case that mutations can happen, and happen repeatedly, before the bacteria are put into circumstances under which those mutations will be beneficial. That's 'cos the mutations are random. Or because the bacteria, besides the ability to perform intelligent acts of genetic engineering on themselves, also have the ability to see the future. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024