Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 286 of 752 (579773)
09-06-2010 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Theodoric
09-03-2010 8:58 AM


Re: dennis780 claims adopted stupider than other people
quote:
because the birth parents are still usually involved to some point
Although I am certain this may be the case in some instances, I have to disagree. My mom fostered children for over 20 years, and still does (since I was 12). In the 8 years I lived at home with these different kids, I never once met their parents, or in any way saw that their parents were involved with their life. In fact, I can think of at least 5 that their parents were dead, 3 that had their kids taken away, and 2 that their parents abused them.
quote:
Foster children are not adopted children.
quote:
Therefore, it begs the question as to WHY, if adoption (instead of foster care or permanent guardianship) is truly in the adoptees' "best interests," does "an over-representation of adoptees" end up in prison --
regardless whether adopted as newborns or later in childhood,
regardless whether placed with abusive or loving adopters,
regardless whether they inherited "good genes" or "bad" genes from loving or abusive biological parents,
regardless whether of one race/nationality or another,
Togel SDY: Keluaran SDY, Pengeluaran SDY, Result SDY Hari Ini - Togel SDY
The information above is from the same source I gave you that you wanted to read (I think you wanted the reference for prisoners).
quote:
Statistically, they are more likely drop out of school, commit crimes, and not go to college.
Passed with flying colors. If you think any of the information is not valid, please feel free to prove me wrong. If you want to voice your opinion, feel free. But this doesn't make me wrong, it makes you adopted, hahahahaha. DING.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Theodoric, posted 09-03-2010 8:58 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Theodoric, posted 09-06-2010 12:27 AM dennis780 has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 287 of 752 (579776)
09-06-2010 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by dennis780
09-06-2010 12:01 AM


Re: dennis780 claims adopted stupider than other people
Although I am certain this may be the case in some instances, I have to disagree. My mom fostered children for over 20 years, and still does (since I was 12). In the 8 years I lived at home with these different kids, I never once met their parents, or in any way saw that their parents were involved with their life. In fact, I can think of at least 5 that their parents were dead, 3 that had their kids taken away, and 2 that their parents abused them.
I don't know about Alberta but things are way different in Wisconsin. I am currently on the foster parent rolls. We do emergency and respite care. Rarely are parental rights severed. In this county upwards of 90% of kids in foster care see their parents regularly. We have been hoping to adopt out of foster care but as of yet there have been none up for adoption.
You have anecdote on this. I have facts.
quote:
Statistically, they are more likely drop out of school, commit crimes, and not go to college.
Passed with flying colors. If you think any of the information is not valid, please feel free to prove me wrong. If you want to voice your opinion, feel free. But this doesn't make me wrong, it makes you adopted, hahahahaha. DING.
Actually no. All you have done is shown that they are overrepresented in serial killers. So are men.
You have shown nothing about dropouts, committing crimes(other than serial killers), and not go to college.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by dennis780, posted 09-06-2010 12:01 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by dennis780, posted 09-06-2010 1:11 AM Theodoric has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 288 of 752 (579779)
09-06-2010 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Annafan
09-03-2010 9:23 AM


Re: What's the problem?
quote:
I'm genuinely mystified as to what Dennis' problem is.
Mine is with evolution Anna.
quote:
Surely he must concede that e.g. point mutations *exist* and are random (which can be demonstrated). Then it is common sense that sufficient pile-up of random mutations is capable of transforming any sequence of DNA
This is perfectly scientific. You were so close to making your arguement sound good.
Then you said this at the end:
quote:
which would include functional genes.
First, this has nothing to do with the source of new chemically useful genetic arrangements. Dog breeders do this to sell dogs with specific traits, but this results in genetic loss (selecting for dogs with short hair, long snouts, small legs, etc). If this is your evidence for all of evolution, then the original bacteria on earth contained all the information required to form the diverse life today, which is quite impossible.
quote:
Here's a scenario:
I'm ready.
quote:
but a first step is taken in the transformation of a gene to a possible other functional.
Virtually all observed mutations are loss of information. This is different from loss or gain of function. If DNA gets larger due to a mutation, but the sequence doesn’t code for anything then the amount of DNA added is useless. If you read back on this thread, you will find some debatable examples of genetic mutational gain (E. Coli), and on another thread, about Nylonese bacteria (both interesting reads). Though even if these arguable examples were true, there would need to be BILLIONS examples for macro evolution to make logical sense, and we simply do not observe that in nature today. In fact, we observe the opposite, that even though mutation can result in beneficial advantages over others within the species (rare but documented), these mutations are the result of genetic loss (wingless beetles, eyeless fish in caves, etc.).
quote:
with a spare duplicate dysfunctional gene waiting there as target for yet more mutations
You clearly are mislead by someone, since not all mutations result in random new information floating around in a bathtub. Point, Inversion, and Deletion mutations result in no new useful chemical nucleotide arrangements, but rather a change within a pre-existing genetic sequence, that usually results in a chemically useless portion or whole of a gene.
Frame shift mutations are quite possibly your best bet. But these genetic mutations are limited to an insertion or deletion of one or more letters not divisible by three, which begs the question, how did the others that are divisible by three mutate?
quote:
At any moment the genome can contain tens of thousands of such "laboratories" that do nothing - either positive or negative - for the time being.
To which there is much evidence that useless information is lost, not gained. Simply explained, there is no harmful result to any organisms that lose useless genetic arrangements, so no disadvantage is present. Loss of useful information does create a disadvantage, so survival of the fittest tells us that the other organisms within that species is more likely to survive. Fruit fly experiments ongoing over 100 years have shown that mutations usually make the organisms less likely to survive against the 'wild type' original species. I can go get the source for you if you like.
quote:
From a distance, the net result of these mechanisms looks a lot like directed design.
Because it is. Though this is yet to be determined, since I haven't even gotten to supporting my viewpoints yet.
quote:
giant iceberg of failed natural experiments.
I would ask for your evidence, but I suppose you don't have any, since there are no references to support anything said here.
quote:
It's a numbers game in which all but a minority fail.
Evolution is a game?
quote:
calculate the evolution of an unimpeded elephant population to get a nice illustration: in just a couple of thousands of years they will cover the entire solar system with elephant dung
Hahahahaha. This (if it is true) is actually an excellent point for ID. If elephants were, at one point, the most advanced of land organisms, what predators would kill them? Another example of overpopulation due to evolution over millions of years is flies.
If two flies were left to reproduce over a year, without predators or other limitations, the resulting flies would cover the entire earth.
I'm not sure what your point was there with the elephant poop, but it was really funny, and really bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Annafan, posted 09-03-2010 9:23 AM Annafan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-06-2010 1:19 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 292 by Vacate, posted 09-06-2010 2:21 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 293 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2010 3:05 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 294 by Annafan, posted 09-06-2010 9:00 AM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 289 of 752 (579783)
09-06-2010 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Theodoric
09-06-2010 12:27 AM


Re: dennis780 claims adopted stupider than other people
quote:
You have anecdote on this. I have facts.
And since you did not respond to my evidence, I'm going to suppose you don't have a logical counterarguement. I win.
However, your facts do not have references, meaning I have to take you at your word. Since I don't know you, I won't. But here are some facts about parents and adoption, WITH references:
quote:
Children come to foster care for a number of reasons. In many cases, they have suffered physical or sexual abuse, or neglect at home, and are placed in a safe environment. A small percentage of children are in foster care because their parents feel unable to control them, and their behavior may have led to delinquency or fear of harm to others. Some children have been neglected by their parents or legal guardians, or have parents or legal guardians who are unable to take care of them because of substance abuse, incarceration, or mental health problems. These children are placed into custodial care while the parents or guardians receive treatment or counseling, or fulfill their sentences...
...The goal of foster care is the care of the child within the child welfare system, but also is to place all appropriate and available services at the disposal of the parents so that they can create a safe, fit home environment for their children when they are reunited...
...More than half (57 percent) of all children in foster care are returned to their original homes; however, reunification rates have declined in the 1990s and early twenty-first century. Children also spend more time in the system. The average length of stay for a child in foster care is 33 months. However, some spend a very short time in a foster home, and others are there for their entire childhoods, "aging out" at 18 when they become legal adults.
These statistics say most cases are due to physical or sexual abuse, but also include prison time, drug and mental health issues. This source also says that children are removed from their environment until it is suitable, and can be reunited. This would suggest that they have not been united until a social worker has agreed to it.
This source also says that just over half are re-united with parents (and declining over the years), rather than the 90% number you pulled out of your butt.
Although I am sure you have good intentions to make the adoption system seem lovey dovey, you are completely wrong thus far, and have provided no evidence to support anything you claim.
Furthurmore, I have shown that adoptees and foster children are more likely to be mentally unstable, spend time in prison, and less likely to graduate. So whether you are doing your part to help these kids or not, you are still wrong. I am going to assume that the child care program is not much different that Canadas, if not worse.
quote:
A recent survey of foster care alumni reported that only 20% of the children who have been placed in foster care do well in society once they reach adulthood.
How To Fail A Child - The American Foster Care Way | Pound Pup Legacy
The truth hurts sometimes big fella.
Oh, and no, I don't mind the subject line. Freedom of speech allows you to express what you want. The evidence will make you look stupid on it's own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Theodoric, posted 09-06-2010 12:27 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Theodoric, posted 09-06-2010 9:41 AM dennis780 has replied

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


Message 290 of 752 (579785)
09-06-2010 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by dennis780
09-05-2010 11:46 PM


In a way, you are right. But the origin of the 'new' information is from existing information, for which no source has been explained.
Mutation. Selection.
The old information was once new itself.
I don't think you even have a penny in your pocket. You have shown that HGT COULD explain how mutation is passed around, though this is questionable ...
We can watch it happening.
You have not explained how new chemical arrangements come about by random chance, or mutation.
I have explained that new chemical arrangements come about by mutation.
I really don't see what's confusing you. The word "mutation", or the word "new", or the way that adjectives qualify nouns, or what? The point is an obvious one.
Mutation is the damage, or alteration of the genetic 'message' carried by any gene. This does not offer evidence for the origin of new chemical arrangements.
That is the origin of new chemical arrangements. Not the "evidence for" them, but the thing itself.
Again, I don't understand what it is that you don't understand.
They are also not new. They are changed.
Ah, apparently it is the word "new" that is giving you trouble.
Very well then, according to your apparent idiosyncratic usage of the word "new" evolution does not require any "new" information. Just "changed" information.
If I buy a car, then sell it without tires, is the car new? No, it is missing a specific part for it to function properly.
If you buy a car, and change the tires for ones that have never been used before, are the tires new?
First, you have not shown that.
Yes I have. You have the desciption of the experiments, you have links to the complete papers. You may not have grasped what they mean, but as Dr Johnson said: "I have found you an argument, but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
Second, though a specific sequence of nucleotides can be damaged, the gene as a whole can still function.
And, in the cases given, function better. So in what sense could they be considered "damaged"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by dennis780, posted 09-05-2010 11:46 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 12:55 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 291 of 752 (579786)
09-06-2010 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by dennis780
09-06-2010 12:51 AM


Re: What's the problem?
If you become any more confused you might end up saying something true just by accident.
This would, I suppose, be an example of neutral drift.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by dennis780, posted 09-06-2010 12:51 AM dennis780 has not replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 292 of 752 (579801)
09-06-2010 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by dennis780
09-06-2010 12:51 AM


Re: What's the problem?
Dog breeders do this to sell dogs with specific traits, but this results in genetic loss (selecting for dogs with short hair, long snouts, small legs, etc).
So examples of long hair, short snouts, and long legs can be used as evidence for genetic gains? Or are you going to claim that all new traits are the result of genetic loss? How much can a bacteria lose before it becomes human, or is it only the other way around? How can we identify the correct route? (Or can information lost never result in a new kind) Is the size of the DNA an indicator of the amount of information?
If this is your evidence for all of evolution, then the original bacteria on earth contained all the information required to form the diverse life today, which is quite impossible.
Why is this impossible exactly? I am certainly not claiming it to be true, I am just curious as to your reasoning. It would be interesting to have a creationist identify how much information is present in any given sample and compare it to other samples. You appear to be on the verge of an actual hypothesis that could be tested.
In fact, we observe the opposite, that even though mutation can result in beneficial advantages over others within the species (rare but documented), these mutations are the result of genetic loss (wingless beetles, eyeless fish in caves, etc.).
Please show me your evidence that beetles lost their wings or fish lost their eyes, of course I believe this to be true, but I am curious how you came to accept that evidence while denying nearly all other evidence scientists present. Did you blindly accept this to be true or was there compelling evidence to support these claims?
Your post, and my questions about it, would seem to lead to answers not about evolution but about The Creationist Method, if there is such a thing. I would love to hear some answers but depending on your answers a new thread could be in order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by dennis780, posted 09-06-2010 12:51 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 1:13 AM Vacate has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 293 of 752 (579804)
09-06-2010 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by dennis780
09-06-2010 12:51 AM


Re: What's the problem?
But these genetic mutations are limited to an insertion or deletion of one or more letters not divisible by three, which begs the question, how did the others that are divisible by three mutate?
What "others that are divisible by three"?
I think this may be another case where you need to hit the sack and give yourself some time to sober up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by dennis780, posted 09-06-2010 12:51 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 1:20 AM crashfrog has replied

Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 294 of 752 (579829)
09-06-2010 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by dennis780
09-06-2010 12:51 AM


Re: What's the problem?
quote:
quote:
I'm genuinely mystified as to what Dennis' problem is.
Mine is with evolution Anna.
Obviously. And I see how it works: you have decided that you're going to have a problem with it, no matter what. You will accept no other outcome to your breakdown of the fundamental mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection, than the conclusion that it must be impossible. And in order to reach that outcome, you have no other choice but fostering your "confusion", juggling meaningless concepts as "genetic loss" and "information", and declaring unequivocal experimental evidence as "doubtful"...
quote:
If you read back on this thread, you will find some debatable examples of genetic mutational gain (E. Coli), and on another thread, about Nylonese bacteria (both interesting reads). Though even if these arguable examples were true,
See what I mean? (bolded) There's nothing debatable or questionable about these results, but you NEED them to be debatable or questionable to maintain your position, so you do what needs to be done.
Excuse me if I skip the part where it would take entire books to respond to all the confusion...
quote:
quote:
quote:
From a distance, the net result of these mechanisms looks a lot like directed design.
Because it is. Though this is yet to be determined, since I haven't even gotten to supporting my viewpoints yet.
quote:
giant iceberg of failed natural experiments.
I would ask for your evidence, but I suppose you don't have any, since there are no references to support anything said here.

Evidence, although plenty available, isn't even needed. Math is enough as you will see below.
quote:
quote:
It's a numbers game in which all but a minority fail.
Evolution is a game?
quote:
quote:
calculate the evolution of an unimpeded elephant population to get a nice illustration: in just a couple of thousands of years they will cover the entire solar system with elephant dung
Hahahahaha. This (if it is true) is actually an excellent point for ID. If elephants were, at one point, the most advanced of land organisms, what predators would kill them? Another example of overpopulation due to evolution over millions of years is flies.
If two flies were left to reproduce over a year, without predators or other limitations, the resulting flies would cover the entire earth.
I'm not sure what your point was there with the elephant poop, but it was really funny, and really bad.

The point escapes you completely, obviously.
May I suggest you take a look here: http://www.athro.com/evo/elframe.html
There's an applet that allows you to roughly calculate (unrestricted) elephant population numbers over time. If we make a couple of reasonable assumptions (6 infants per pair of elephants, fertile at 30, productive for 60 years), you get these kind of results from one pair of elephants:
After 200 years 54 elephants
After 500 years 13100 elephants
After 750 years 1.060.000 elephants
After 850 years 9.600.000 elephants
After 900 years 28.700.000 elephants
After 1000 years 86.000.000 elephants
After 1030 years 258.000.000 elephants
...
After 2000 years 11.100.000.000.000.000 elephants
Obviously you can nitpick on the assumptions and exact formula, but the numbers are in the right ballpark at least. Elephants have existed for millions of years, so even if we would have to multiply the timescales by 10 or even 100 to be closer to real, there's more than enough time to easily surpass these numbers.
Now, the highest stable elephant population, before man started to hunt them extensively, was in the order of 10.000.000. So obviously, something is going on! Also remember that elephants have no natural enemies worth mentioning (if we forget about untypical mankind with its current resources for a moment).
Of course all this is no mystery: the population is mainly limited by the available resources (water, food, territory etc.). The earth is simply not able to support more than roughly 10.000.000 elephants. But you have to let sink in what this means: since the elephants' reproduction rate is largely independant of the state of the population, it means that even when that population is at its 10.000.000 maximum, it is at that very moment in the process of producing 18.000.000 new elephants over the next 50 years! Even at the moment when the actual ceiling is already reached. Which means that roughly twice as many elephants will die over that 50 year period, as the ones that remain alive. This process repeats itself over EVERY next 50 year period. For one of the SLOWEST reproducing animals. It doesn't take much imagination to see what would happen if you do this exercise with mice, flies, let alone bacteria. This is what I meant when I said that the typical state of a living being is "being dead". The living ones are the -much more visible and therefore misleading - exceptions.
The underappreciated consequence of all this is, that negative mutations are irrelevant. Since selection (the competition among the elephants for available resources) is non-random, they invariably disappear into the reservoir of elephants that die anyway. The reservoir of twice as many elephants as living ones that is by necessity eliminated every 50 years, EVEN if we would suppose that there would be exclusively positive mutations for some miraculous reason. Negative mutations are merely background noise, a necessary by-product of the mechanism. Positive mutations, no matter how rare, are on the other hand virtually guaranteed to be preserved by the advantages they bring to their carrier.
And this is why randomly shotgunning mutations at the genome ends up over time with the same result as from time to time carefully inserting a rare positive one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by dennis780, posted 09-06-2010 12:51 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 1:54 AM Annafan has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 295 of 752 (579836)
09-06-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by dennis780
09-06-2010 1:11 AM


Re: dennis780 claims adopted stupider than other people
Again you are posting foster stats not adoption stats.
In order for any of your stats to have validity you need to talk about adopted not fostered.
These statistics say most cases are due to physical or sexual abuse, but also include prison time, drug and mental health issues
Notice the word foster throughout the selection.
This source also says that just over half are re-united with parents (and declining over the years), rather than the 90% number you pulled out of your butt.
There is no reference for me to check your source. I imagine it is a national figure. In our county, which is rural, the figure is actually 78%. I checked my notes from my last training session. So I was a little off. Wisconsin as a whole has a much higher percentage.
quote:
In 2007, most Wisconsin children left foster care to
return home (65%)
Source
But then again we are supposed to be talking about adopted people, not foster children. Maybe you can someday understand the difference.
Furthurmore, I have shown that adoptees and foster children are more likely to be mentally unstable, spend time in prison, and less likely to graduate. So whether you are doing your part to help these kids or not, you are still wrong. I am going to assume that the child care program is not much different that Canadas, if not worse.
Again, you keep bringing up foster care. The issue is adoptees.
The evidence will make you look stupid on it's own.
Personal attacks? Ain't that lovely. All I have done is ask you to support you assertions. If you provide evidence I will acknowledge you are correct. I do not think your claims are founded on facts, but I could be wrong. As of yet you have not supported your assertions. If you would do some research so you understood the difference between foster care and adoption you might be able to actually find real evidence.
How about you quit posting foster care info and how about we drop this since it is off topic. I understand it is a bias you have that you cannot support with evidence.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by dennis780, posted 09-06-2010 1:11 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 2:39 AM Theodoric has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 296 of 752 (579963)
09-07-2010 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Dr Adequate
09-06-2010 1:16 AM


quote:
Mutation. Selection.
The old information was once new itself.
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. Repeating what you claim proves nothing. Furthuremore, you don't specify what types of mutation are logical evidences for mutation bringing about new information. There are different kinds.
quote:
We can watch it happening.
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.
quote:
I really don't see what's confusing you. The word "mutation", or the word "new"
Nothing. Other than you still refuse to give evidence to support mutational evolution. I can just as easily say, "God created the earth, Adam was there". I have a witness. Does this make it true? Of course not. I need to support my claim with evidence. I think it's fair for you to do the same. Explain what mutational processes can account for new information.
quote:
I have explained that new chemical arrangements come about by mutation.
But not that these new arrangements are useful, nor that this information was not from a previous source. New arrangements of DNA must have function to offer an advantage to an organism. I can easily argue that mutation changes DNA, because it HAPPENS. What you have not argued is that any useful function comes about from these mutations.
quote:
Just "changed" information.
If you are talking about Micro evolution, you win. But new functional genetic information would be required for macro evolution.
quote:
If you buy a car, and change the tires for ones that have never been used before, are the tires new?
No. The material is old. The tires were fashioned by an intelligent designer for a specific function.
quote:
And, in the cases given, function better. So in what sense could they be considered "damaged"?
Loss or damage of any specific nucleotide sequences. Though the gene has lost information, it can still function, and quite possibly better than other organisms within it's species. But this is still due to a chemical loss. This usually results in a loss of specialization, but can actually benefit the organism, because the mutants have lost something the situation targets negatively overall within the group.
quote:
Yes I have. You have the desciption of the experiments, you have links to the complete papers.
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. This would suggest that the organisms deliberately reprogrammed their DNA in response to environmental conditions, and in no way offers evidence for a random genetic mutation.
quote:
"I have found you an argument, but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
Preach it.
quote:
And, in the cases given, function better. So in what sense could they be considered "damaged"?
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. For example. A human being could lose the genetic information for platelets in their blood. This would be extremely beneficial in that their risk of heart attack and stroke is almost eliminated. But this genetic loss is also harmful since that same person could easily bleed to death from a small cut.
I have no quarrel with genetic mutation, nor with beneficial mutations, since there are many examples of these. My quarrel is with GAIN of functional genetic chemical arrangements, by random mutations, of which you have not shown at all. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-06-2010 1:16 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Coyote, posted 09-07-2010 1:15 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 315 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-08-2010 1:52 AM dennis780 has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 297 of 752 (579964)
09-07-2010 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Vacate
09-06-2010 2:21 AM


Re: What's the problem?
quote:
So examples of long hair, short snouts, and long legs can be used as evidence for genetic gains?
No.
quote:
Or are you going to claim that all new traits are the result of genetic loss?
I'm claiming that all our traits have been here since God created us. Why would I try to argue your point?
quote:
How much can a bacteria lose before it becomes human
You are missing some steps, but effectively, none. Since new genetic information is required to take bacteria to human over time.
quote:
Why is this impossible exactly?
Hahahahahahaa, really? 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? I'll let someone else make fun of you. I'm into it with Theo right now, and I gotta keep my enemy list down...
quote:
Please show me your evidence that beetles lost their wings or fish lost their eyes, of course I believe this to be true, but I am curious how you came to accept that evidence while denying nearly all other evidence scientists present.
Hahaha, you are funny to talk to. Here is the evidence:
quote:
Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. Similar would be the case of sightless cave fish. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would reduce that vulnerability. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss and never gain. One never observes wings or eyes being produced on creatures on which they have never existed.
Genetics: Enemy of Evolution
I don't deny any scientific facts, since that would be unreasonable. I am still waiting for the evidence on the source of new functional genes.
quote:
I would love to hear some answers but depending on your answers a new thread could be in order.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Vacate, posted 09-06-2010 2:21 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Vacate, posted 09-07-2010 2:14 AM dennis780 has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 298 of 752 (579965)
09-07-2010 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by dennis780
09-07-2010 12:55 AM


Macroevolution again?
If you are talking about Micro evolution, you win. But new functional genetic information would be required for macro evolution.
How many micros does it take for a macro?
Seriously!
Because that is what forms a macro--a lot of little micros and a bit of time and selection pressure.
There is no magic line that must be/cannot be crossed. Each generation is very close in all traits to the previous one. But over time those little changes can add up. When you look at grandfather, father, and son you see almost no change. But if you back off 300,000 years you will see a lot of changes, and if you go back 3,000,000 years you will see a lot more changes.
The lines drawn between these "species" are arbitrary, as again, each generation is almost exactly the same as the previous. But when you look at long temporal spans you see significant changes.
Those little changes are micros, and lots of them add up to macros.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 12:55 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 2:04 AM Coyote has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 299 of 752 (579966)
09-07-2010 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by crashfrog
09-06-2010 3:05 AM


Re: What's the problem?
quote:
What "others that are divisible by three"?
I think this may be another case where you need to hit the sack and give yourself some time to sober up.
Thats funny. I never claimed to be a scientist, but I always research claims offered. I suggest you do the same from now on.
quote:
A frameshift mutation (also called a framing error or a reading frame shift) is a genetic mutation caused by indels (insertions or deletions) of a number of nucleotides that is not evenly divisible by three from a DNA sequence.
Frameshift mutation - Wikipedia
AGAIN, my question is:
What caused the mutations of nucleotides 3,6,9,12,15,etc.
I would prefer to stick to my debate with Dr. Adequate. If you don't know, the least you could do is make me laugh, then I would have a reason to respond...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2010 3:05 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2010 10:37 AM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 300 of 752 (579970)
09-07-2010 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Annafan
09-06-2010 9:00 AM


Re: What's the problem?
quote:
you have decided that you're going to have a problem with it, no matter what
Until research generally points to genetic increases in functional DNA (for this subject in particular), yes.
quote:
fundamental mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection
I am a thorough believer in natural selection, and random mutation. My question to Dr. Adequate, and you, is can genetic mutation bring about new, usually more complex organisms over time? And if so, references.
quote:
declaring unequivocal experimental evidence as "doubtful"
No, I quoted them as wrong. Two experiments performed by different people should not yield similar results if genetic mutational gain is in fact, RANDOM.
quote:
See what I mean? (bolded) There's nothing debatable or questionable about these results
You really need to read back, I'm not restarting topics that have already been discussed.
quote:
Excuse me if I skip the part where it would take entire books to respond to all the confusion
What confusion? Why read a book about confusion?
quote:
Evidence, although plenty available, isn't even needed.
OH. I see. You don't like evidence. You like math. Okay. Heres some:
quote:
Population growth is increasing currently at a rate of approximately 1.8% per annum (World Book Encyclopaedia), or doubling every 39 years.
Even if the average time that the population doubled in the past was as slow as once every thousand years (that is one twenty-fifth of the present growth rate), this would put the first pair of humans on Earth only 31,500 years ago.
Some people, not willing to believe that mankind was created only a few thousand years ago, claim that the world’s population has been almost wiped out many times. Clearly it has never been wiped out entirely. While some people will assert that the human population has been almost wiped out a number of times, without their providing any evidence to back it up, these same people get very agitated if we suggest that the population was nearly wiped out once by a great Flood in the time of Noah.
The world’s population was approximately 600 million in the year 1650 and increased to about 2,400 million by 1950. This means that it would have doubled twice in 300 years, at an average rate of once every 150 years.
Human population growth - creation.com
The math here says that humans are not a million years old. Hmm. Still like math?
quote:
This is what I meant when I said that the typical state of a living being is "being dead".
I'm really not following you on your point. You are saying that most animals are dead, or that they are alive and will soon be dead? Also, how does any of this relate to evolution. Make your point already.
quote:
The underappreciated consequence of all this is, that negative mutations are irrelevant.
OHHH. Thats your point. Your wrong. 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.
quote:
Since selection (the competition among the elephants for available resources) is non-random, they invariably disappear into the reservoir of elephants that die anyway.
The probability of elephants with advantages over others surviving is higher than those that do not (larger tusks, bigger overall size). These advantages allow them to better fight for things such as water, suitable mates, etc., things that you described. This is just survival of the fittest, which no one here is contesting.
quote:
guaranteed to be preserved by the advantages they bring to their carrier
Your example is a story, offering no examples of beneficial mutations. I don't understand your point again.
quote:
And this is why randomly shotgunning mutations at the genome ends up over time with the same result as from time to time carefully inserting a rare positive one.
No one is 'carefully inserting' anything, unless you are suggesting that an intelligent designer is the source for new genetic information (which is still wrong, since there is no evidence for this).
AGAIN, no one is arguing that mutations can bring about a positive result. We are debating the SOURCE for new functional genetic code.
You do write funny things though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Annafan, posted 09-06-2010 9:00 AM Annafan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Annafan, posted 09-07-2010 4:56 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 310 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2010 10:49 AM dennis780 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