Some questions about evolution (genetics etc) and possible implications for creationism

Wildswanderer said:

Um, ok, do then how does everything evolve from a single celled organism?

Click to expand...

1. survive
2. reproduce
3. mutate
4. repeat

Wildswanderer said:

It's only mechanism is blind chance.

Click to expand...

Is it "blind chance" that polar bears have white fur while grizzly's that live in the woords are brown?

Wildswanderer said:

Statistically impossible.

Click to expand...

If that was the case a single paper could bring down the entire field.

Wildswanderer said:

First, tell us the rate of duplication necessary, and how many duplicated but silenced genes we would expect to see in a given genome, and the needed rate of turning on and off, and the statistical possiblity of a new function arising in the silenced gene, and how this new function will be integrated into the already complex genome of the organism, and the rate at which the ‘junk’ DNA would be expected to be lost to genetic drift or through natural selection

Click to expand...

Theses are interesting questions. Perhaps you could start a thread on the topic.

This wiki page is worth looking at:

Gene duplication - Wikipedia

Wildswanderer said:

Gene duplication is usually a negative, not a positive. The whole theory has holes an elephant can walk through.

Click to expand...

I'm sure they often are. The theory isn't resting on the assumption that they are generally beneficial, though.

Biology cataloging puts too much emphasis on the shell; facade, of living creatures, even though the brain and consciousness is what drives both natural and artificial selection. If you consider birds, the female bird's selection of her mate is processed by her brain. The male's display of song and dance is processed by his brain. Building nests and finding food, together or separate, is processed by both brains. Biology fixates on the final shell and not the mechanism of consciousness that interfaces the shell for selection.

The bible is consistent with the brain; operating system, of humans changing about 6000 years ago. It says free will and choice appear and humans become above the animals; updated from a previous operating system. The shell stilled would look the same, but new behavior started; civilization, which required changes that challenged eons of instinct; wandering and gathering. Farming, for example, critical to civilization, ties one to a single place, and eons of wandering are repressed.

In the bible Cain kills Abel. Cain was a farmer and Abel was a herder of animals; when Cain kills Abel farming supersedes migratory herding; new operating system appears in Cain. God then banishes Cain, who then complains to God that whomever shall come upon him will kill him. The question I have is, who were these whomever ,if there was only Adam, Eve and Cain at that time? It was the pre-humans with the old operating system; migratory herders. God gives Cain a symbol; talisman for protection. Cain goes on to breed with the pre-humans; genetic transfer.

If you look at humans, we all have human nature; similar operating system and software. This is true of all races. But we come in all shapes, sizes and colors. One operating system can have many facade expressions. If we were birds, with the same outward differences, biology would classified humans as hundreds of subspecies. This would be woke taboo. The brain can create this differences with the same parental DNA.

ImmortalFlame said:

If a mutation makes it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce, then it is more likely to survive and reproduce.

It's that simple.

Click to expand...

Lol, no it isn't. It has to be carried on. Just because it's beneficial in some sense doesn't mean it will cause survival.

TagliatelliMonster said:

If a canine would produce a giraffe, evolution theory would be disproven.

Click to expand...

But one has to transition into another regardless of how many transitional species are in between. Makes no difference if you claim common ancestor it's the same thing.

Wildswanderer said:

Lol, no it isn't. It has to be carried on. Just because it's beneficial in some sense doesn't mean it will cause survival.

Click to expand...

What's deemed "beneficial" in this context is a mutation which IMPROVES survivability. So your claim here makes no sense. What you're saying is basically "just because a mutation improves survivability doesn't mean it will improve survivability".

Do you wish to claim that a mutation cannot possibly result in an increased chance of survival and reproduction?

TagliatelliMonster said:

Is it "blind chance" that polar bears have white fur while grizzly's that live in the woords are brown?

Click to expand...

That's adaptation. Not macro evolution.

TagliatelliMonster said:

So what are you saying?

That if he is unable to make a 747 out of a bicycle, then biological evolution is wrong?

Are you being serious?

Click to expand...

He made the claim that it's possible. I'm just asking for proof. He doesn't have to do it real, just on a computer screen. Rearrange the parts of a unicycle to turn it into a jet with no extra parts added.

Wildswanderer said:

Lol, no it isn't. It has to be carried on. Just because it's beneficial in some sense doesn't mean it will cause survival.

Click to expand...

Read the post you are replying to.
It says that it becomes more LIKELY to survive.
Not that it definitely WILL survive.


Right out the gates and not considering anything else, every organism has the same odds of surviving and reproducing.

But because there is genetic variation, some have better odds then others.
Some have very low odds. Others have very high odds.
The immediate environment also plays a role. Individuals living near fertile coasts will generally find it easier then those on a barren volcano flank.

How can you honestly try and argue this simple fact?

If it's completely "blind and random", then all individuals should have the exact same odds.
But this is not the case at all.

Natural selection will favor those with the best odds. Inevitably.
Simple probability. Those things that have better odds of occurring, will occur more often.

Wildswanderer said:

But one has to transition into another regardless of how many transitional species are in between. Makes no difference if you claim common ancestor it's the same thing.

Click to expand...

I love you how
1. ignored the rest of the posts and choose to respond to a footnote point instead

2. didn't even understand the footnote point. No, one does not "have to transition" to another. In evolution, this does not happen! Speciation is a vertical process. The descendants of mammals, will be mammals and subspecies of mammals - which will still be mammals. The descendants of canines will be canines and subspecies thereof - which will still be canines.

In evolution, canines do not evolve into non-canines.
If canines evolve into non-canines, then that would be a violation of the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution theory and it would effectively be demonstrated false.

In evolution, species never outgrow their ancestry.

This is why humans are "still" primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes.
You carry your ancestry within you both genetically as well as anatomically and you can not outgrow it.

The reason why is explained in the parts of the post you completely ignored, where I explain how DNA is inherited by off spring and how that forms a nested hierarchy.

Wildswanderer said:

That's adaptation. Not macro evolution.

Click to expand...

I asked you in another post what it is that you mean by "macro evolution".

Now I need to ask again.
I get you don't believe it happens. I'm just asking you what you mean by it.

I have a feeling that I will agree with you that what you mean by it, indeed doesn't happen. Nor will it be something evolution says would happen.

But surprise me. Please clarify.

Wildswanderer said:

That's adaptation. Not macro evolution.

Click to expand...

Which creationist site have you been getting this bilge from?

Wildswanderer said:

He made the claim that it's possible. I'm just asking for proof. He doesn't have to do it real, just on a computer screen. Rearrange the parts of a unicycle to turn it into a jet with no extra parts added.

Click to expand...

This is intellectual dishonesty to boot. He never said that. The bolded part is your own addition.

Wildswanderer said:

That's adaptation. Not macro evolution.

Click to expand...

Define "macro evolution", because I'm fairly certain you don't know what it actually means.

Wildswanderer said:

Lol, no it isn't. It has to be carried on. Just because it's beneficial in some sense doesn't mean it will cause survival.

Click to expand...

Yes it does in Natural Selection. IF the Natural Selection does not lead to the survival of the offspring than the species does not survive.

You need to get a decent science education instead of being on auto pilot with an ancient religious agenda.

shunyadragon said:

Yes it does in Natural Selection. IF the Natural Selection does not lead to the survival of the offspring than the species does not survive.

You need to get a decent science education instead of being on auto pilot with an ancient religious agenda.

Click to expand...

You have not answered anything, you only keep repeating " you're wrong. " Kinda pointless.

TagliatelliMonster said:

This is intellectual dishonesty to boot. He never said that. The bolded part is your own addition.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure a jet doesn't have any unicycle parts in it, but regardless, he knew exactly what I meant when he made the claim.

SkepticThinker said:

Which creationist site have you been getting this bilge from?

Click to expand...

Adaptation is possible because of the information already present. It's not change to a different kind of animal. A raccoon has thicker fur the further north you go, for example. That's not what creationists mean by " evolution."

Wildswanderer said:

Adaptation is possible because of the information already present. It's not change to a different kind of animal. A raccoon has thicker fur the further north you go, for example. That's not what creationists mean by " evolution."

Click to expand...

Which creationist site have you been getting this bilge from?