Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 301 of 851 (555110)
04-12-2010 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Faith
04-12-2010 8:10 AM


Yeah, "beneficial" by the back door as it were, nothing like the kinds of alleles that already exist in all species that produce all the variations. You're describing what is essentially a disease process and assuming it's something normal. That's what I encountered in Bluejay's descriptions also. Just shows to me that evolution is in the business of making up loads of BS.
Again, if this made sense, it would be a lie. But again, your own incoherence has prevented you from being as wrong as you'd like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 8:10 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 302 of 851 (555111)
04-12-2010 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Faith
04-12-2010 8:31 AM


Oh it produces NOVEL stuff, sick novel stuff plus miles of dead DNA.
Unlike you, I have studied genetics. If you really wish to deceive people with this pathetic trash, try a Sunday School class.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 8:31 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 303 of 851 (555113)
04-12-2010 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Wounded King
04-12-2010 8:28 AM


They aren't exactly "beneficial" when you take a look at them, they're just odd genetic events
Well that is your repeated assertion, but since you repudiate the evolutionary concept of beneficial, a mutation which confers upon its posessor an increase in evolutionary fitness in terms of reproductive success,
The EVIDENCE for this is the occasional oddball fluke and otherwise nothing but treating as fact what is only assumed because you need it for evolution to work. This makes me madder than anything else, that you will talk about assumed mutations AS IF they were fact and confuse people who think you've actually SEEN them.
and refuse to provide your own definition of beneficial ,beyond that you will know it when you see it, there isn't really any way to determine whether this is true or not.
Sorry, but it's just as good as YOUR methods of making your case.
It certainly isn't true going by the scientific definition,
And "science" in the case of evolution is turning out to be nothing but reified hypotheses, not science at all.
but going by the 'Faith' 'definition' it will probably always be true since you are the only arbiter of what constitutes a beneficial mutation in that respect and you wont let the rest of us know what your criteria are.
Sorry, I do expect to find something in human beings that recognizes the differences between truth and BS, fact and fiction, but evolutionists have apparently lost the function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Wounded King, posted 04-12-2010 8:28 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-12-2010 8:46 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 308 by Wounded King, posted 04-12-2010 9:13 AM Faith has replied
 Message 321 by Taq, posted 04-12-2010 2:47 PM Faith has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 304 of 851 (555118)
04-12-2010 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Faith
04-12-2010 8:30 AM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
So, what you are saying is that in Percy's example, the TCG to TAG could happen, yet the TAG to TCG couldn't?
I would like to know what you base this on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 8:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 9:07 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 305 of 851 (555119)
04-12-2010 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Faith
04-12-2010 8:30 AM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
BENEFICIAL for cripes' sake. Get the CONTEXT.
The context? The context, Faith, is that you are so incoherent, and so wrong about such a multitude of subjects, that it is sometimes hard to tell what in particular you want to be wrong about. If you scream in denial of one fact, how am I meant to know that you meant to be shrieking in denial of another? What you now claim you meant to say sounds just as silly as what you actually did say, so how am I to know which ludicrous error you intended to make?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 8:30 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 306 of 851 (555120)
04-12-2010 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by Faith
04-12-2010 8:37 AM


The EVIDENCE for this is the occasional oddball fluke ...
... and your point is?
Yes, mutations are a product of chance. Have you really not grasped that yet?
... and otherwise nothing but treating as fact what is only assumed because you need it for evolution to work.
This lie would be more interesting if fewer creationists had learned to recite it.
And "science" in the case of evolution is turning out to be nothing but reified hypotheses, not science at all.
Scientists disagree with you. So who should I believe about the nature of science --- scientists, or a woman who drivels out hopeless nonsense about every scientific topic she mentions?
Sorry, I do expect to find something in human beings that recognizes the differences between truth and BS, fact and fiction ...
But you can't recognize it when you see it. Why do you suppose scientists think that creationists are a bunch of drooling halfwits? Why do you think everyone round here is laughing at you?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 8:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 307 of 851 (555123)
04-12-2010 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Huntard
04-12-2010 8:39 AM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
So, what you are saying is that in Percy's example, the TCG to TAG could happen, yet the TAG to TCG couldn't?
No, it doesn't matter to me, flukes happen, so what.
Mutations are clearly a disease process, that's the conclusion I've come to beyond any doubt in the last few days, whatever result they produce. They're a mistake in the DNA duplicating process. Evolutionists try to make the entire machinery for evolution out of this mistake. "Well, we have no other source of alleles." You don't say. How about CREATION? Anyway, you see all these mistakes being made and you leap to the conclusion that this is what produced all those alleles in all those species. Leap, assumption, no evidence. Nope, it's a mistake, it's a disease process. It takes something functional and turns it into garbage, either a protein that makes a genetic disease, or a big fat nothing that simply displaces a formerly functioning allele. Mutation is a huge delusion used to prop up evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Huntard, posted 04-12-2010 8:39 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-12-2010 11:35 AM Faith has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 308 of 851 (555124)
04-12-2010 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by Faith
04-12-2010 8:37 AM


I don't see what any of your reply has to do with the points I raised. You dismiss the actual evidence as 'the occasional odball fluke' which is surely exactly what we would expect a low frequency event to be?
Sorry, but it's just as good as YOUR methods of making your case.
Only if you don't care about establishing whether something is true or not. The scientific approach gives very specific criteria for what constitutes a beneficial mutation and we can readily apply them to mutations in various simple model organisms from bacteria to invertebrates such as C. elegans or Drosophila. For humans and other vertebrates with longer generation times it is more difficult, but in most cases still doable, humans present their own issues of course in terms of research ethics.
There is an inference that existing genetic variation is the result of historical unobserved mutational events, but it is an inference consistent with what we see occurring every day throughout the natural world in terms of mutations creating genetic variation.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 8:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 1:47 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 337 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2010 10:13 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 309 of 851 (555127)
04-12-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Faith
04-12-2010 8:00 AM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Faith writes:
Based on a totally fantasy scenario you want me to accept that mutations are possible?
It's not a fantasy scenario, Faith. It's a thought experiment that addresses whether beneficial mutations are possible in principle. So let's try again.
Allele TAG mutates into allele TCG which is mildly deleterious. Obviously the reverse mutation of TCG mutating back into TAG in a later generation is equally possible, so we can see that in principle there is nothing preventing mutation in a beneficial direction.
Now we go a step further to consider the scenario where the TAG allele had never existed in the population but TCG did. There is again nothing preventing its mutating in a beneficial direction into TAG.
So can we agree that in principle beneficial mutations are possible?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 8:00 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by Faith, posted 04-17-2010 10:58 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 310 of 851 (555128)
04-12-2010 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Faith
04-12-2010 7:53 AM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
Faith writes:
Right, so you can get away with not having to prove any of it, simply declare it a FACT based only on your assumption-- that is really fraudulent! Evolution NEEDS mutations -- you can't just declare they are there with no evidence.
Before I comment on this I have to concur with Dr Adequate. Your unique, um, style makes it impossible to know what you're assuming and what you're not, or what you think is the context and what you think isn't. For this reason, when you're referring only to beneficial mutations you need to be explicit, because everyone here believes it is possible that at any moment you could change your mind and begin advocating anything else, regardless of what you've said previously.
Evidence of mutations has been provided, so I presume you're not asking for evidence of mutations, but of beneficial mutations. Bacterial studies make clear that beneficial mutations are possible (we can provide this evidence again if that's necessary), so what you doubt is how well this applies to multicellular life. Do I have that right?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 7:53 AM Faith has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 311 of 851 (555133)
04-12-2010 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
04-12-2010 8:26 AM


Faith writes:
Normal based on what we actually see in nature that is the product of genetic variation that couldn't possibly be the result of the kinds of mutations that are observed and described.
What evidence do you have that genetic variation is not a result of accumulated mutations in the genome? Can you back up this assertion?
Furthermore, if you have germ line mutations in the genome you ARE definately going to have variation, irregardless if its beneficial or harmful.
You are correct to say that if 100% of mutations are harmful (aka kills off the organism before it can reproduce) than that genetic population line will go extinct. Do you honestly believe that there are zero beneficial mutations in all organisms past or present thus making natural selection null and void?
The mutations are all destructive, all mistakes, all abnormal with respect to what has to be the normal function of the genetic system if living things could ever existed at all.
And you know this because?
And it's only because you don't have any other source of alleles to keep evolution running that you try to make so much out of these deformed genetic events.
Mutations! Mutations keep evolution running irregardless of whether they are beneficial, neutral or harmful. Natural selection weeds out the weak populations and those with harmful mutations thus allowing the stronger populations with the more beneficial mutations to survive. Genetic drift and other evolutionary mechanisms also come into play here.
It really is this simple. Please back up your assertions with facts instead of your baseless opinions.
And your point is? These are disease processes, and mutations produce thousands of diseases, yet it is claimed / assumed that somehow evolution chugs along on stuff that maims and sickens.
Yes, it is called natural selection i.e. survival of the fittest. Which applies to populations of organisms, individual organisms and individual genes in those organisms. As long as you have some beneficial mutations natural selection will keep those genome mutations in the gene pool longer than the harmful ones.
Disease is an interference with normal. There's plenty of both in reality, but to any sane mind there is no problem telling the difference. But evolutionists try to blur the two and claim that a process -- mutations -- that is ONLY actually KNOWN to produce genetic deformities -- could actually produce normal healthy life.
Are you saying you do not think there are any mutations that could potentially benefit that organism? None? If so where is your evidence?
The evidence is against such a claim in the thousands upon thousands.
None of this 'evidence' has passed the peer review test.
99.9% of all life science professionals worldwide accept evolution as true.
A dead gene is evidence of a disease process in the organism.
Disease just means that some outside influence i.e. virus, prions, etc are causing changes aka mutations to the genome. In other words 'disease' can cause mutations.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 8:26 AM Faith has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 312 of 851 (555135)
04-12-2010 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Admin
04-12-2010 7:48 AM


Re: Dominant and recessive and so forth.
Admin writes:
Would you like to continue the discussion with Faith in a one-on-one over at Reduction of Alleles by Natural Selection (Faith and Bluejay Only)?
If Faith is interested, I would like to finish walking through the thought experiment that I've begun with her here, and it would be less noisy if we did so over on the other thread. I don't know nearly as much biology as Bluejay does, however, so I might need correction and back-up from time to time. (Heck, lyx2no has to fix my math most of the time even if I'm just figuring volume or area.) If folks are willing to use this thread to thwack me if I go astray over on the other one, then I'm game.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Admin, posted 04-12-2010 7:48 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 2:22 PM ZenMonkey has not replied
 Message 320 by Admin, posted 04-12-2010 2:44 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(2)
Message 313 of 851 (555137)
04-12-2010 11:14 AM


Beneficial and deleterious mutations
I'll suggest that the discussion here is quite misleading.
In a way, Faith is correct that beneficial mutations are rare.
Take the example of a mutation that gives antibiotic resistance to a bacterium. That mutation is likely either deleterious or neutral. For a bacterium in its normal environment, where there is little antibiotic present, the antibiotic resistance provides no benefit. What that mutation does do, however, is it allows that bacterium to move to a different environment where there is a significant amount of antibiotic present. And that mutation is beneficial in the new environment, but not in the old.
The term "beneficial" is not properly applied to a mutation. Rather, it should be applied to a mutation with respect to a particular environment. What might be beneficial in one environment can be deleterious in another. You cannot understand evolution without taking into account the change in environmental niches that accompanies the evolution.
"If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"
"If motorcycles evolved from bicycles, why are there still bicycles?"
Adding a motor to a bicycle is not a beneficial change. It makes the bicycle heavier and less maneuverable. But it does change the bicycle into something different that can be used in ways that are different from the ways we use a bicycle.
Evolutionists are quick to point out that evolution is not progress. It is change, but there is no direction. If we deny that evolution is progress, we ought to also deny that mutations are beneficial. If we insist that evolution is change without implied direction, then we should talk of mutations as agents of change, instead of saying that they are beneficial.

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-12-2010 11:28 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 341 by Wounded King, posted 04-13-2010 4:33 AM nwr has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 314 of 851 (555138)
04-12-2010 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by nwr
04-12-2010 11:14 AM


Re: Beneficial and deleterious mutations
100% agree.
I am only using the term 'beneficial' in reference to mutations to refer to the ability of an organism to live long enough to pass its genetic code to the next generation (either asexually or sexually). This is the main factor that affects whether accumulated mutations result in biological evolution and thus in this context are 'beneficial' to that population. Whether that population later go's extinct because of these accumulated mutations is a different but related matter.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by nwr, posted 04-12-2010 11:14 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 315 of 851 (555140)
04-12-2010 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Faith
04-12-2010 9:07 AM


Re: ring species genotypes are different
They're a mistake in the DNA duplicating process.
A mistake implies a deviation (usually unintentional) from its originally designed process.
The problem is that no one can definately say what this 'originally designed process' is supposed to be even if you do believe in a Creator God. Can you read the mind of God? How do you know what this 'originally designed process/gentic code' is supposed to look like?

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 9:07 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Faith, posted 04-12-2010 1:56 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024