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

[tas8831]

Beneficial mutations are counted on way more than is actually observable to science though...... No genetic mutation will take any creature outside of its taxonomy.

So much jargon in your archived copy-paste extravaganza.

Do you still think phylogenetic trees are drawn FISRT and then analyses are done? Or was there your pal nPeace?

 

[rational experiences]

Basic advice.

We are all humans first.

We have sex like all bio forms do.

We continue presence due to sex the first choice the only choice to claim self presence. First. First act for self creation. First consciousness. Natural human.

Teaching of relativity versus evil men choices was the act of sex.

Basic just a human.

Then you have egotism.

All imbalanced human choices against first self survival.

Basic advice. Don't have to think much to argue. Arguing is tiring regarding humans pitting ego against ego.

So you ask a question what caused argument. Advice humans looking back claimed they knew all god advices about presence

So equality and equal balances was a holy imposed human teaching. Are you equal in form to anything you discuss.

No said science.

Why it was forbidden for human safety to look back telling lies.

Biology said a living healthy monkey was closest living relative as a science teaching. Was not a teaching saying I know everything it was basic survival advice for humans.

 

[F1fan]

The interesting thing about debates with creationists is that it's not actually a debate. It is well-informed and educated members explaining to creationists why their beliefs are in error, and contrary to what experts report.

 

[Clara Tea]

Animal bodies are built in accordance to which particular genes are present, how they are stored and when they are switched on and off (and some epigenetic factors). I'm simplifying a bit due to ignorance, but this is roughly correct, yes?

The difference then between the Westie that sleeps at my feet and the American Bulldog next door is down to some differences in genes and some differences in the timing of the expression of those genes?

And the difference between the bodies of a grizzly bear and the unfortunate salmon they catch is explained by the same factors?

The genes, the storage system and the timings are all alterable through mutation?

For the creationist (that is one who contends 'macro' evolution isn't possible): if the differences between the variety of animal bodies are explainable (in principle) with regards to the genome, and the genome is inherently changy, why would evotionary change be unable to produce fish from non-fish, cats from non-cats, humans from non-humans?

I promise not to be rude. I really am interested in seeing if there is a stumbling block that can be shifted here. Plus I could be entirely wrong.

If this doesn't make sense I'll try to clarify below. Thanks in advance for responses from anyone who knows anything about how animal bodies are built.

Also, I think my social life has hit rock bottom. It's ten-past-twelve on Sat night.

Atavism - Wikipedia

Atavism is when a genetic trait reappears.

Human fetuses have tails like fish.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Beneficial mutations are counted on way more than is actually observable to science though

No.

...... No genetic mutation will take any creature outside of its taxonomy

Correct. If that would happen, evolution theory would effectively be debunked. It's one of the basic principles of biological evolution: you can never outgrow your ancestry.

So mutations (little or many) taking a species "outside of its taxonomy" is not a thing that evolution expects. Au contraire, it is a thing that evolution says can not happen.

. "Speciation" is a misleading term because there are not really any new "species"...only new varieties of a single species that is produced by adaptation

Almost correct.
There's no "new species" in the sense of that it will "outgrow" its ancestral species.
Instead, speciation is always a process of where a species produces a new subspecies.

All descendends of cats will be cats or subspecies of cats, which will remain cats.

Their ability to interbreed (or not) is irrelevant.

Well, isn't that convenient.
This is dishonest off course.
Ring species are a perfect example of how species can split into subspecies which in turn can change to such extent that they are no longer able to interbreed.

Which by any and all accounts, results in an actual new species.

From Wiki...
"Chapter 6 of Darwin's book is entitled "Difficulties of the Theory". In discussing these "difficulties" he noted

Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
This dilemma can be described as the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in habitat space.[7]

So all the transitional varieties are simply absent? Even "rarity" is misleading since they are not just rare but not a single one has been found.....how scientific is that?

Are you aware that an insane amount of transitional fossils have been found, and entire genomes sequenced (both of which only further validated the theory), since that book came out 2 centuries ago?

It seems like you aren't.

What hampers our ability to swallow science's version of events is a lack of real substantiated evidence that what they claim is true....or even possible.

Well, off course, if you genuinely think that nothing new has been found and no new lessons were learned since Darwin published his work 2 centuries ago, you might have missed all that progress and those discoveries.

Somehow though, I doubt that you are this oblivious.

The "mechanisms" that they point to are not proven to form new taxonomic families....adaptation only adds new varieties to an already existing one.

Yes. Speciation is a vertical process not a horizontal one.
Species produce more of their own - which includes subspecies.
Cats will not evolve into dogs.
They'll produce more cats and evolve into subspecies of cats.

Mutations are a poor argument

Mutations are not an "argument".
They are factually and demonstrably the means by which genetic variation and modification happens.

because the majority of them are deleterious, resulting in death or failure to reproduce

This is horribly, perversely, insanely incorrect.

Here's the evidence for how that is insanely incorrect:
Every human on average has about 55 mutations. It is called the mutation rate.
If "the majority" are harmfull "resulting in death and failure to reproduce", how come the human species hasn't gone extinct 200.000 years ago? How come there are 7 billion of us?
After all, each of us, according to you, should have 25+ damaging mutations which should be lethal or affecting our ability to reproduce.

I'm 40. 2 healthy kids and very much alive. And I'm not an exception.

So, clearly, something in your nonsense is not adding up.

When are the flies in these experiments no longer flies?

According to evolution: never.
If in such experiment flies would produce non-flies (over whatever amount of generations), then the experiments would effectively refute evolution theory.


Why is it, that you are pretending that "they are still flies", is actually evidence against evolution while the exact opposite is true?

Darwin's finches were all still finches....none of them were transforming into other kinds of birds.

Yes. If finches would produces pigeons or chickens or albatrosses or ducks... evolution would be falsified.
So why do you consider it a problem for evolution that the things that evolution says won't occur, actually don't occur?

What does it matter how living things changed if science cannot explain how life originated?

The same way it matters how atoms can be used to harnass nuclear energy without being able to explain where the atoms came from.

You are effectively saying that all knowledge is useless unless you know absolutely everything.
Surely you can see how foolish that is.

They act as if these two subjects are divorced from one another...

In terms of scope of inquiry, they absolutely are.
For example....

Suppose you investigate a murder.
When building a case against a suspect, would you as a judge require to provide evidence of where the suspect was born, who his parents were and in which position they had sex before you can begin to investigate what the suspect did 30 years later?

Off course not.
How the suspect exists is not the subject of inquiry.
What the suspect did while already existing, is the subject of inquiry.

Same with biology.
Life exists and we can study it. How it works, what mechanisms are at play,...
And we don't need to know where exactly it came from to be able to do that.

If there was an intelligent Creator who was responsible for all the "kinds" of lifeforms that have ever existed, then evolution falls flat on its face

If we are going to allow for magic to occur, then all of science falls flat on its face.

PS: common ancestry of species = genetic fact.

Perhaps this is why some are so desperate to hang onto it, despite its many gaping holes.

No, it's the exact opposite. You are so desperate to argue against evolution (while using every fallacy in the book) precisely because your religious beliefs are contradicted by it. And you can't have that.

If a biologists would actually genuinely be able to refute evolution theory, he'ld do it in a heartbeat as it would bring him instance fame, glory and likely immortality in name (and a Nobel, off course).

A scientists has exactly zero incentive to falsely uphold the status quo.
But dogmatic theistic believers like yourself, have very much incentive to not acknowledge certain parts of science - because it contradicts a priori beliefs.

Science just wants to make progress. It cares not for any particular idea emotionally. It cares about evidence and what does and doesn't work.

Redefining the word "theory" by placing the adjective "scientific" in front of it doesn't magically alter its meaning.

See? Here you go.... now you've left the realm of biology and went into full anti-science mode by starting to yap about scientific jargon and what "theory" means in scientific context.

It's pretty pathetic if you ask me........

 

[rational experiences]

The basic human aware advice natural self knows instinctive behaviours for self survival.

And science medical is the only acceptable science as it supports life continuance.

Theists today argue advice only based on any pre taught ideals being religious creation sciences.

Multi terms existed expressed first then implied change in teachings as one of form only. Self advice to reason holy presence inferred to holy human self life to continue.

A one of God never implied God was one substance. Human egotism for noteriety makes that claim.

One said by entitled human existing stated give presence no occult science name term otherwise we won't survive.

Pretty basic advice.

Ego does not express basic.

Therefore philosophy of science was applied holy spirituality life's reverence only. No alchemy law.

As civilization used Alchemy then basically it was re allowed. Yet all warnings against science not heeded. Egotism.

Therefore biologist science said we never were a monkeys evolution as they named multi beast animals pre God forms that owned variations to expressing human beings owned bio presence.

In many beasts lives.

As advice spiritually every body its owned presence was a life support of humans presence. So honour it.

God advice stated by human observation only.

And pigs in cellular form was close to humans biology it taught don't eat it's flesh. It would be like eating yourself.

So Multi bio gods being biology had been expressed proving we belong with life supported by animal spirits multi bodies of them. The beast. Animals. Not some satanic spirit in radiation.

Why animals were implied to be gods by humans.

So humans said the human life is holy as a human.. ....science practice is a human practice only.

Taught never look back. As theory or theism as a human lied. Proven an outright lie by life sacrificed due to human science causes.

Basic healer human medical common sense.

 

[GardenLady]

I think you are referring specifically to YEC's.

If I understand correctly, it is really referring to those who believe Genesis literally, whether or not they subscribe the the Ussher timeline based on "begats." That is, many are YECs, but some (JWs) are old-earth creationists who still believe the Genesis account in the context of a longer timeline and with special creation of "kinds" and humans.

But, yeah, I see many comes on RF that refer to "creationists" that really mean YECs and/or Genesis literalists.

 

[tas8831]

Let's see here.

Well, there is no validity in any of this. It can be discarded without further review. You are not even trying. Your opening statement says nothing. You follow it with a straw man. Then an incorrect claim about species. Then the typical appeal to adaptation as if it were not evolution when it is. A reproductive barrier is entirely relevant, but so typical of you to wave it away.

So nothing substantive from you at all. It is...how did you say that...irrelevant.
You are not fooling us. We know that you know that science has moved on from Darwin and we have evidence accumulated over that 150 years since and a greater understanding of transitional forms. Pity you can't move on.
I am on the middle ground. You are busy convincing yourself not to use the mind and senses God gave you.
Then there is some overlap in our interpretations. Perhaps you will open eyes yet.

There are several key points that illustrate your denial of science. 1. Education. 2. Understanding. 3. But the greatest of all of these is Indoctrination.

Oooo! Pretty pictures.

The illustration is not of an experiment designed to breed 'not flies'. Another straw man. And you will not, you cannot, bring yourself to the obvious conclusion that is does illustrate adaptive evolution.

Ooooo! More pictures. More straw man.
Another straw man. Adaptations are the evidence. Science doesn't do proofs.
Another straw man. Not a claim of science.
Of course not. No one in science is trying to support your straw man.
And another straw man. Science is based on evidence, observation, logic and theory and not guess work. Guess work seems to be your domain.


This is awesome. You just can't get over this favorite fictional argument against a theory no matter how many times you get told the truth. You do not need to know how something originated to formulate explanations about it. It is that simple. Even a child can understand that.
Just plain false. What is worse here is that you know this.
They are linked, just not as you misrepresent. The theory of the evolution of life is not dependent on a specific origin of life. What you and other creationists do is attempt to connect something we do not know with evolution to falsify it by the association. It is a huge fail that does you no service.

Not at all and you have never shown that your claim has any substance. You just repeat the same refuted points ad nauseum. Evolution fits the facts even if the origin of life is divine creation.

All false with no substance or support. Theory has not redefined. The definition in science has simply been related to you repeatedly hundreds of times. Yet you still try to wave it away without support.

Ooooo. More pretty pictures. And plenty more logical fallacies to garnish them.

Fortunately for us, all these interactions have been observed by people that did not deny their eyes or their intellect. These are not examples of flukes of nature. Their existence is explained by the theory of evolution. Besides, you have demonstrated to us that you are not interested in valid explanations and will just ignore and deny all in deference to you churches doctrine. On what point should anyone waste time explaining these things to you when you will just repeat the same denials and fallacies you have here and many, many, many times elsewhere?

She keeps posting the same sorts of nonsense that was refuted when she posted it years ago.
At least she didn't whine about "jargon" again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

She keeps posting the same sorts of nonsense that was refuted when she posted it years ago.
At least she didn't whine about "jargon" again.

And the nonsense gets torn to shreds every time.

 

[night912]

Or the fact that language is still language no matter who speaks it.....it doesn't evolve into telepathy.

Correct. And just like how monkeys didn't evolve into humans, language doesn't evolve into telepathy. But just like both monkeys and humans are some "form" of Primate, both language and telepathy are some "form" of Communication.

Nice try. See how someone else can use your own tactic on you and showed your FAILED.

 

[rational experiences]

Life records state the church passed a law against theism and Gods destruction.

Said the beast half man half animal The sis I of God as if man were half man half a God outlawed as evil satanisms. Why it was against pyramid science and theists.

Showing gods as man like with beast heads. Symbolic of what science had believed.

As a human was a whole human.

Science proved science was theorising our genetic destruction by claiming biology was half a God.

Seem to forget your own teachings and why the bible became a shut book with a sworn oath to only tell the human truth via human laws.

With an end statement to never give God a name ever again and you cannot add onto natural form.

As man created the + cross add sacrifice himself. And caused the end of life. As Jesus was in fact the ancient status when first man had destroyed all life on earth.

Why the teachings placed the advice Jesus before Ch arose stone god gases.

That kept our new life in heavens safe. Cooling a long time ago placed the image man upon his add + in the clouds.

Modern man added two more men bodies on the same cross of causes. What was taught. Two new man modern life DNA genetics had died.

As God was a status body of ten.

Noah Moses pyramid attack reverted genetic lineage back to eight.

Sex.

Humans have sex with humans produce human babies.

Men did have sex with animals and never produced anything.

God status said sex was chosen by man and woman humans.

Covering of the body procured the status we owned self control. Philosophy is ever present in our holy teaching.

Teaching said that to keep self uncovered and only agree to sex was against a holy life. As virtue was obeyed in self control.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, I take creationism to mean the assertion that we were made as we are by divine act.

Yes, but some Creationists like me, believe God Created our existence naturally as science has objectively determined by scientific methods.

 

[Etritonakin]

DNA/evolution would not have been a surprise to a God who designed, packaged and initiated the universe.
The singularity became countless worlds and environments within which the elements could interact and assemble into that which they logically would.

Evolution does not need to be false for creation to be a factor.
Creation and evolution both exist/happen.
Evolution in its broadest sense results in creativity.
The only possible question is which happened when.

Nature is sufficient for what nature alone (absence of creativity) can cause.
Nature can cause creativity -and creativity can cause what nature alone can not.
Nature is not sufficient for what a creator can cause.

The question is... Was pre-universe nature alone sufficient to cause present nature?
Or... did creativity necessarily evolve in a pre-universe environment?

 

[Yerda]

DNA/evolution would not have been a surprise to a God who designed, packaged and initiated the universe.
The singularity became countless worlds and environments within which the elements could interact and assemble into that which they logically would.

Evolution does not need to be false for creation to be a factor.
Creation and evolution both exist/happen.
Evolution in its broadest sense results in creativity.
The only possible question is which happened when.

Nature is sufficient for what nature alone (absence of creativity) can cause.
Nature can cause creativity -and creativity can cause what nature alone can not.
Nature is not sufficient for what a creator can cause.

The question is... Was pre-universe nature alone sufficient to cause present nature?
Or... did creativity necessarily evolve in a pre-universe environment?

I'm not sure I understand these questions. I do agree that evolution and a creator aren't necessarily contradictory ideas, but in this thread I meant creationism as in special creation by the Bible type God who made humans, as is, without the need for an evolutionary lineage.

In particular I'm interested in the reasoning of those people who believe evolution can't account for the variety of life we find today. I don't think any have chosen to respond to the OP yet, however.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Animal bodies are built in accordance to which particular genes are present, how they are stored and when they are switched on and off (and some epigenetic factors). I'm simplifying a bit due to ignorance, but this is roughly correct, yes?

The difference then between the Westie that sleeps at my feet and the American Bulldog next door is down to some differences in genes and some differences in the timing of the expression of those genes?

And the difference between the bodies of a grizzly bear and the unfortunate salmon they catch is explained by the same factors?

The genes, the storage system and the timings are all alterable through mutation?

For the creationist (that is one who contends 'macro' evolution isn't possible): if the differences between the variety of animal bodies are explainable (in principle) with regards to the genome, and the genome is inherently changy, why would evotionary change be unable to produce fish from non-fish, cats from non-cats, humans from non-humans?

I promise not to be rude. I really am interested in seeing if there is a stumbling block that can be shifted here. Plus I could be entirely wrong.

If this doesn't make sense I'll try to clarify below. Thanks in advance for responses from anyone who knows anything about how animal bodies are built.

Also, I think my social life has hit rock bottom. It's ten-past-twelve on Sat night.

You can not get from a fish to a bird for example without remaking the whole system. It's not just small changes, but it would be like saying you could program a unicycle a certain way and turn it into a 747.
Just not possible.

 

[Yerda]

You can not get from a fish to a bird for example without remaking the whole system. It's not just small changes, but it would be like saying you could program a unicycle a certain way and turn it into a 747.
Just not possible.

Can you explain why not?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Can you explain why not?

I just did.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I just did.

No, you didn't.

Please explain how, through a process of numerous relatively small changes over time, it would be impossible to turn a unicycle into a 747.

I mean, it is pretty obviously possible, right? If we can turn minerals carved from rocks into cars, why can't we do that?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Please explain how, through a process of numerous relatively small changes over time, it would be impossible to turn a unicycle into a 747.

Lol, not without adding a lot of extra parts and not without an intelligent designer. Impossible.
Where are the extra parts coming from? Poof, magic?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lol, not without adding a lot of extra parts and not without an intelligent designer. Impossible.
Where are the extra parts coming from? Poof, magic?

That's not an explanation either.