Message 137 of 1034 (691981) 02-26-2013 9:52 PM

Reply to: Message 121 by Bolder-dash 02-26-2013 2:13 PM

That's a quite fair question. The answer is no, questioning evolution is not automatically a Bible argument. However, an argument consisting of simple assertion that evolution and mutations cannot produce change that crosses baramin boundaries is a Bible based argument.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Message 138 of 1034 (692027) 02-27-2013 12:19 PM

Reply to: Message 137 by NoNukes 02-26-2013 9:52 PM

ABE Edited to remove heated remarks.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Message 139 of 1034 (692035) 02-27-2013 12:41 PM

Reply to: Message 138 by Faith 02-27-2013 12:19 PM

I have not seen this reasoning. Could you point me to the post in this thread where this reasoning can be found?

Message 141 of 1034 (692040) 02-27-2013 1:29 PM

Reply to: Message 140 by ringo 02-27-2013 1:22 PM

Or simply: Because their conclusions are wrong.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Message 142 of 1034 (692066) 02-27-2013 3:35 PM

Reply to: Message 141 by Faith 02-27-2013 1:29 PM

Or because you are trying to shoehorn biological diversity into your biblical timeline?

Message 144 of 1034 (692070) 02-27-2013 4:23 PM

Reply to: Message 141 by Faith 02-27-2013 1:29 PM

Thus far, you seem to be making stuff up on the fly without any reference to any facts. That doesn't seem to be a very good explanatory system. You claim that further mutations can not produce a new kind or baramin, but you have yet to show any evidence to back this claim.

Where did you demonstrate that their conclusions were wrong?

Message 145 of 1034 (692078) 02-27-2013 4:58 PM

Reply to: Message 143 by Faith 02-27-2013 4:01 PM

Why do you insist that new alleles cannot enter a population when tens of thousands of biologists and geneticists have shown otherwise? How do breeders make new lineages and yet find no trace of these prior existing alleles in the parent populations?

Why do you insist that mutations in growing populations cannot increase genetic diversity when tens of thousands of biologists and geneticists have shown otherwise?

Why do you have to invent baramins as separate creations with no common ancestry when tens of thousands of biologists and geneticists have shown otherwise?

Why do you have to speculate on some past super-genome when tens of thousands of biologists and geneticists have shown otherwise?

By the way, when did this super-genome come into being? Some 6000 years ago at the biblical creation, yes?

The logic you use here and on your blog begins with your conclusions to fit diversity into the biblical time line. When you work backward from the present, every time you encounter an obstacle that leads away from the biblical time line, you have to invent some mechanism (baramins, bad mutations, no new alleles, super-genomes) to bring the path back on line with the conclusions you have already chosen. And this chosen conclusion is that biblical genesis is True^®.

So, yes, Faith, in answer to ringo's question, you are trying to shoehorn biological diversity into your biblical time line.

Edited by AZPaul3, : mechaniks

Message 146 of 1034 (692089) 02-27-2013 5:42 PM

There are about 7 billion people on this planet. Assuming an average life span of 80 years and assuming that about 20 years defines a human generation there are about 1,750,000,000 people in each of humanity's 4 present living generations.

The latest study that I have seen shows about 30-50 genetic mutations in each child's genome that were not present in either of the parents genomes.

This is done, by the way, by having the mutations alter the parent's genome in the germ line (reproductive) cells. Each of mom's eggs and each of dad's sperm are not exact faithful copies of their genes. Each mutation is a unique change to one of that parent's genes somewhere in their genome.

So right now there are about 210 billion genetic mutations in the human genome that were not there 80 years ago. And each additional generation adds another 52 billion more mutations to the mix. That's about 2,600,000,000 new mutations entering the human genome each year.

Humans the world over are notorious for getting it on with whoever, whenever, all over the globe. The mixing and re-mixing of these mutations takes place in child after child.

Since not all humans are dead, incapacitated, deformed and sterile then the majority of these mutations in the present world population cannot be deleterious.

These are facts. We know this data for the reality it is. We have been there, we have seen it.

Can you really tell us that this constant infusion of altered genes, by the billions each year, does not increase genetic diversity in the human genome?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Message 147 of 1034 (692090) 02-27-2013 5:42 PM

Reply to: Message 145 by AZPaul3 02-27-2013 4:58 PM

Advantageous mutations occur only very rarely in the small populations that breeders can handle. Advantageous mutations *do* happen but cannot be depended upon. Breeders rely almost exclusively upon selecting desired features for breeding. Faith is correct that in general breeding programs reduce diversity.

In the plant world hybridization is a way of introducing new alleles and genes. Well, new to the plant receiving them.

And in the animal world breeders can cross-breed between species, or mix in non-pure breds to add diversity.

But mutations play an extremely minor role in breeding programs.

--Percy

Message 148 of 1034 (692097) 02-27-2013 5:59 PM

Reply to: Message 138 by Faith 02-27-2013 12:19 PM

Point to a post that provides a reason why mutations cannot introduce the diversity needed to produce baramin crossing evolution.

Message 149 of 1034 (692099) 02-27-2013 6:05 PM

Reply to: Message 145 by AZPaul3 02-27-2013 4:58 PM

What actually happens in reality is that the processes of evolution come to an end by running out of genetic possibilities.

In REALITY. This is demonstrated in breeding and it is demonstrated all the time in the wild where conservationists are concerned about species endangered by genetic depletion.

You CLAIM that mutations keep adding diversity so that this doesn't normally happen but you do not KNOW that. You know that there ARE mutations but you don't know what they actually DO in the population. Again it's an article of faith based on your theory telling you that's what has to happen.

The other paradigm is that the existing genotype is quite sufficient to provide all the diversity needed for new phenotypes to emerge through many population splits, each new reduction in numbers reducing the genetic diversity until eventually if the splitting keeps continuing you arrive at speciation and inability to further evolve new varieties.

The only way I can think of that my paradigm could be proved is if the DNA could be sampled from a sequence of populations to show this reduced diversity.

Meanwhile you have no proof for your paradigm either, all you have is a consensus of belief.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Message 150 of 1034 (692100) 02-27-2013 6:14 PM

Reply to: Message 147 by Percy 02-27-2013 5:42 PM

And so it is. Well, I suppose she can't be wrong about everything just like I can't be right about everything.