Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

onceforgivennowfree

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 13 of 49
 [ 977 posts ] 
onceforgivennowfree
Author Message
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3508Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

creationist wrote:I'm just facepalming myself at what you guys actually think constitutes scientific proof for things. Here's Ra's best argument.

"My buddy Dawkins said it so there you have it. Nuff said. Proof that the laryngeal nerve evolved. I don't know what else you creationists want. Dawkins said it! HE SAID IT so that means it's absolute truth! Don't you know how the scientific method works? You're all morons! Peer review isn't necessary as long as my good buddy Dawkins said it. I don't know why you creationists keep dismissing my peer reviewed YouTube videos as actual scientific proof! Hey, did I mention that Dawkins likes me? He calls me a 'friend'. Just thought you'd all like to know that."

Amazing.....my university buddies are all getting a huge chuckle out of this. It's been humorous if nothing else. The best way to exploit Ra's lack of education about a topic is simply to let him talk. It's certainly been a true learning experience for the Ra-rahs I know that used to follow Aron.


creationist wrote:It's like watching an argument from a 5 year old child! Seriously!


:lol:

Someone is projecting again.

AronRa wrote:Those of you who are used to arguing with creationists, have you noticed that any sentence which ends in a question mark will be ignored?


Yes. That is why I usually keep a running list of the unanswered questions at the end of each post. I have even gone as far as creating a new thread just for the questions.

dandan wrote:I said that “mutations + NS = deterioration”. This is something that we know and that can only be explained by creationism, not by evolutionism.


:facepalm:

Claim CB102. Your premise is incorrect.

creationist wrote:Just because some humans decided to group certain organisms into categories doesn't prove nature-did-it! STOP with the nature of the gaps arguments!!!! Grouping things together doesn't prove that the mechanisms of mutations and NS accomplished all of it! I can NOT believe you don't grasp even the simplest of concepts! You ASSUME they all 'evolved'. Why can't you grasp this?


Yet more proof that you do not know the first thing about anything you have commented on thus far. Humans are not creating the phylogenetic trees. Isotelus cited a great paper, which explains how phylogenetic trees are created. You could also read this epic quote.

Dragan Glas wrote:The difference is, creationist, there is no definition for "kinds" - it's whatever a Creationist says it is.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:
creationist wrote:A 'kind' to a creationist is more in line with a Family or organisms and NOT a species.


Thus, creationist accepts we share a common ancestor with apes. Not sure what creationist meant by organisms, but if he meant order, than he accepts humans share a common ancestor with primates.


ldmitruk wrote:Why do I think you have several lines of evidence and the reason you won't let us see it them because you only want to present the limited amount of evidence you happen to think disproved evolution in one fell blow, and keep the rest hidden away., It appears to me you are playing a game of B.S. poker in this discussion. So I'm calling B.S., what ever evidence you provide is something creationists have twisted the meaning of to say "Look at the this paper by so and so. It has disproved evolution" Yet the scientist(s) who wrote it never said such a thing and if they did would on their to fame and glory for coming with a better explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.


Well, dandan and creationist have both already set precedent for this being the case. Thus, I think you have a pretty safe bet there.

Baggi wrote:My suggestion to OFNF is to tell AronRa to put up or shut up. OFNF didn't challenge someone to ask him a bunch of questions. He challenged someone to prove evolution. All he is getting is first grade debate tactics.


Yet that was not the challenge as Onceforgivennowfree went on to say later. Onceforgivennowfree also went on to say that he actually accepted evolution as defined by AronRa. You seem to be missing a major factor in their exchanges and that is trying to figure out what exactly Onceforgivennowfree wants to see evidence for and what evidence he would accept. All of this could have been avoided if creationists would use proper terminology from the beginning. The only people playing word games here are the creationists.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue May 20, 2014 4:06 am
YIM WWW
Darkprophet232User avatarPosts: 226Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:42 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Baggi wrote:Bah!

I came back here after a few days to see if AronRa and OFNF had furthered their conversation and perhaps see some evidence from AronRa.

And all I see is more stalling from AronRa. More questions that need answers before he can prove evolution.


In all fairness, ofnf hasn't posted since you were last here, so it's pretty hard to continue a conversation with someone who isn't present. But don't let that get in the way of you getting up on your high horse and adding nothing to the conversation.
“The man who believes that the secrets of the world are forever hidden lives in mystery and fear. Superstition will drag him down." -The Judge
Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Tue May 20, 2014 4:08 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 565Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:About teeth in birds, at most you proved that in some cases the information is not lost, but deactivated. But if I understood you well you are saying that mutations NEVER destroy information.
There is a type of mutation that would render a gene irreparable; in which case, it may be replaced with another gene of novel function. Either way, the genome still doesn't deteriorate the way you said it would.

Now let me ask you, is a defective gene for dinosaur teeth in chickens consistent with the creationist 'model'?

What about broken primate genes in humans?
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Tue May 20, 2014 4:17 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 565Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Baggi wrote:Bah!

I came back here after a few days to see if AronRa and OFNF had furthered their conversation and perhaps see some evidence from AronRa.

And all I see is more stalling from AronRa. More questions that need answers before he can prove evolution.
I did explain in the original post that proving evolution to one who doesn't understand it necessarily means educating that person, and that also means getting them to analyze the data for themselves. I know creationists are used to simply ignoring what they don't want to acknowledge, but the rules laid out for this exchange will not permit that.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Tue May 20, 2014 4:21 am
BaggiPosts: 36Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 6:20 am Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Darkprophet232 wrote:
Baggi wrote:Bah!

I came back here after a few days to see if AronRa and OFNF had furthered their conversation and perhaps see some evidence from AronRa.

And all I see is more stalling from AronRa. More questions that need answers before he can prove evolution.


In all fairness, ofnf hasn't posted since you were last here, so it's pretty hard to continue a conversation with someone who isn't present. But don't let that get in the way of you getting up on your high horse and adding nothing to the conversation.


Why would he post again? He was waiting for AronRa to post something, I'm sure, before he posted again. It's kind of tough to respond to something that doesn't exist.
Tue May 20, 2014 4:58 am
Darkprophet232User avatarPosts: 226Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:42 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Baggi wrote:Why would he post again? He was waiting for AronRa to post something, I'm sure, before he posted again. It's kind of tough to respond to something that doesn't exist.



I'm pretty sure I'm not imagining this post.
“The man who believes that the secrets of the world are forever hidden lives in mystery and fear. Superstition will drag him down." -The Judge
Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Tue May 20, 2014 5:06 am
BaggiPosts: 36Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 6:20 am Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

I did explain in the original post that proving evolution to one who doesn't understand it necessarily means educating that person, and that also means getting them to analyze the data for themselves.


I posit that you're the one who doesn't understand evolution. That OFNF understands it better than you do. Thus your endless questions. You can't ever move on to proving evolution. Not that you won't, you can't. Because you're unable to. So you have to play this game of pretending like you're the smartest person in the room and woe is you, no one understands you.

As a matter of fact, there is plenty of proof that you do not even understand rudimentary science. When OFNF tries to engage you in the science, you are dismissive, because you don't understand it.

That actually would be obvious to a biology student, except that you’re missing key componants. For the moment, all I will say is that you would be surprised, and probably disappointed, if you knew how incidentally blood can form some tissues.


This isn't an answer at all. This is a stall tactic and it's lame. Other than your friends here, who would possibly find this as anything other than a dodge?

I told you, I’m not going to bother explaining anything before you have the necessary foundation to understand it,


That's convenient. Here's a challenge, explain something. Anything. I'll bet OFNF understands it better than you do. C'mon, I dare you. Explain just one thing and lets see if OFNF understands it.

OK, the engines we have today certain have a lot of modifications and parts that the earliest engines didn’t, and that’s why your analogy doesn’t work. The other reason, as I already explained, is that the earliest eumetazoans show a transition from very few and extremely simple organs descending from earlier forms with no organs at all, and this transition is not remotely like your analogy of an engine.


Alright, here's something. Great! Now we're cooking. Finally something you know something about so you're willing to engage in it. Fantastic. Can't wait for OFNF to respond to this. Because it's actually something worthy of a response.

No, I’m trying to get you to realize how creationism fails even to ask the necessary questions, much less answer them. If you were to think as a scientist, you would analyze this question with four different hypotheses. (1) that creationism is true, (2) that creationism is NOT true, independent of evolution, (3) that evolution isn’t true, regardless of creationism, and (4) that only evolution is true. You should make predictions about what sort of data you should expect in each case. In EVERY case thus far, all the relevant evidence has always been consistent with both the 2nd and 4th hypotheses and never either of the other two.


This is called a non sequitur. OFNF wrote

Do you realize that for evolution to even have a chance, you would need to have a step-by-step mutational pathway from the ground up?


And you responded with:

Yes, and as I said, we can actually trace it now.


Yay! That's a start to proving evolution. Let's see it. Oh wait, instead, you wrote the above long paragraph.

I see a trend here. Writing 1000's of words to say nothing? Worth your time. Proving evolution? Not so much.

No, you obviously don’t want to see that, as any evidence you do see prompts the same type reaction.


Ummm, a response? He's responded to everything you've put out there so far, except all your lame distractions. Stick to the science. Trust me, OFNF will understand.

You’re the one avoiding the challenge.



Ummm, what? OFNF offered a challenge, you accepted it. Now you're saying he accepted some challenge from you? That's rich.

But again, I see where this is going. You've got nothing. Why not just admit it and move on with your life?

I am focusing on the challenge;


You may notice a trend in all these quotes of yours I'm putting in this message. So far, 90% of them are explicitly not focusing on the challenge. The challenge wasn't, "Educate people you think don't know anything." the challenge was, "Prove evolution." and so far, you've offered almost nothing in that regard.

Yeah yeah, we know, you can't until you educate us poor schlubs.

That must get you pretty far with the ladies, but how it gets you anywhere on a forum with the word "Reason" in it's name is beyond me.

I then stated:
Just to be clear, I’m not convinced that a protein or gene can evolve into a different protein or gene.
So you don't believe in missense mutations; you think all mutations are silent, and that genes composed of a different configuration of different amino acids at various locations will still produce identical proteins? Is that seriously what you're saying?
Of course those mutations happen, and they can render the protein nonfunctional (or cause diseases). They can’t create a fundamentally new protein. More on that later.

Let's have more on that now, because you’re wrong, they can. Remember when I asked whether you would accept the documented identification of specific mutations producing new genes with beneficial effects? This is the 3rd time I’ve asked you that same question, and you still haven’t answered it.


Yes, more of this please! Glad to see you can start to discuss some science without first educating him. At least in a few areas.

If you can’t show that a simple protein fold can reasonably occur, then Evolution is dead in the water.
How so? Can you explain that? And how would you explain protein folding?
You ignored both of those questions too, as you have so many others. You ignored the second question because creationism can never provide an accurate answer for anything. And you ignored the first question because you have no idea what you're talking about. The explanation you imagine to be impossible is already in the textbooks of basic genetics. The folds occur when different amino acids are subsituted by mutation, altering the shape, and thus the active sites. However mutations aren’t even the only in which this happens.


Yay! More of this please!

It seems clear that you are able to actually discuss some things without the "First you have to be educated" crude. This is actually a great response to OFNF, and I'd love to see how he responds, because in this exchange, so far, you've got the better of him. Why not stick with this?

Do you have a way to explain this? Or a way to prove that this is not a problem for Evolutionists?

Yes. All your exaggurated probabilities here are another smoke screen which is inconsistent with the basic primer on genetics.


And another good response. Phew, finally. Now this conversation is finally starting to get interesting. My doubt in your knowledge is lessening with this last two.

As for the rest and the insistence that he answer your questions? Nonsense. Either accept the challenge or say you thought the challenge was something else and you can't do his challenge for reasons of blah blah blah. Whatever you want to make up that makes you feel better in the morning.

But so far, i'm seeing very little of the last two quoted remarks.

I look forward to OFNF's response to those in particular, and hope that he doesn't get lost in the other crude.
Tue May 20, 2014 5:25 am
BaggiPosts: 36Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 6:20 am Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Darkprophet232 wrote:
Baggi wrote:Why would he post again? He was waiting for AronRa to post something, I'm sure, before he posted again. It's kind of tough to respond to something that doesn't exist.



I'm pretty sure I'm not imagining this post.


Last time I was here, OFNF had responded to AronRa but AronRa had not yet posted anything.

The post you link to was posted by AronRa today. May 19th. As I said in the post you quoted of me, I haven't been here in a few days. IE: I was here after OFNF responded to AronRa, but not before AronRa responded to OFNF.
Tue May 20, 2014 5:27 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3508Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Baggi wrote:I posit that you're the one who doesn't understand evolution. That OFNF understands it better than you do. Thus your endless questions. You can't ever move on to proving evolution. Not that you won't, you can't. Because you're unable to. So you have to play this game of pretending like you're the smartest person in the room and woe is you, no one understands you.

As a matter of fact, there is plenty of proof that you do not even understand rudimentary science. When OFNF tries to engage you in the science, you are dismissive, because you don't understand it.


:lol:

Baggi wrote:As for the rest and the insistence that he answer your questions? Nonsense. Either accept the challenge or say you thought the challenge was something else and you can't do his challenge for reasons of blah blah blah. Whatever you want to make up that makes you feel better in the morning.


I already covered this. Baggi must be ignoring me. The creationists always run from me. :(
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue May 20, 2014 5:39 am
YIM WWW
Darkprophet232User avatarPosts: 226Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:42 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Baggi wrote:The post you link to was posted by AronRa today. May 19th. As I said in the post you quoted of me, I haven't been here in a few days. IE: I was here after OFNF responded to AronRa, but not before AronRa responded to OFNF.


I can see you posted this on Sunday at 12:41 A.M. EDT. Your next post here was timed Monday at 10:06 P.M. EDT. That's a difference of almost 34 and a half hours. Pretty hard to get a "few days" out of less then two. How much discussion did you expect in this time frame?

*Edited to fix quote.
“The man who believes that the secrets of the world are forever hidden lives in mystery and fear. Superstition will drag him down." -The Judge
Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Tue May 20, 2014 5:53 am
IsotelusBloggerUser avatarPosts: 317Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

I thought I had included this reply in my latest post, but I must have accidentally deleted it:
dandan wrote:Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the discordances are due to “errors” in the methods used to determine phylogenetic relations and not actual discordances? Just making sure that we are in the same channel.

A model with discordant trees can also be explained by intelligent design, or for that matter by any other explanation, that is why discordant trees don´t convince me.

Evolution is just to flexible, it can accommodate to any data that can potentially be presented.


No, the methods are fine. The discordances are there. The suggestion that evolution is too flexible is erroneous because given what was known about how genes segregate, discordances were predicted decades before the technology and computer programs were available to even sequence and test genomes. You say that any other explanation can account for discordant trees, but you have not provided any defensible argument against the validity of ILS, gene flow, etc.

creationist wrote:The first paper I listed said "Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics." That's some pretty impressive preservation wouldn't you agree? So the whole "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is kind of a cop out.

Let's just look at what we have for evidence in front of us and not 'guess' at what may or may not be found.

Are there any fossils in the precambrian showing brains and eyes among other internal organs all interconnected where the brain controls the other organs in the body?

What evidence can you provide to show that these interconnected organs and systems 'evolved' via the mechanisms of mutations and NS and don't, for all intents and purposes, give the appearance that they just *poofed* into existence already interconnected and communicating?


Sabellidites is very well-preserved, but I never denied the existence of Precambrian body fossils. When dealing with the fossil record, it’s not a cop out but an absolute necessity to consider and fully understand the factors determining why we find the fossils that we do, as well as those that we don’t. It is a false assumption on your part that a lack of clearly defined organs in the Precambrian would be evidence for your point, given that the fossil record itself doesn’t even give the appearance of things poofing into existence (my mention of basic bauplans and mineralized shells (of which Sabellidites is an example, incidentally) present in the Precambrian went disregarded). Recall as well that the paper you yourself cited concluded that there was no "poof" as you describe it. That being said, I just remembered I had this in my stash of papers (I admit that was rather silly of me): http://www.biol.uw.edu.pl/ewolucja/ludzie/81.pdf

I have no clue why peer review even exists. What a waste.


You should ask these people: https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/
Punnet square summer camp: Be there or be square!
Tue May 20, 2014 6:52 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 880Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I already covered this. Baggi must be ignoring me. The creationists always run from me. :(

It is not what you believe but why you believe it. In this case, I already asked the creationists, twice, why they have not rejected creationism if they have a standard of evidence so high that they reject evolution so that they can explain, by using an example from creationism, what exactly qualifies as evidence for them (they reject evolution as a whole because they do not understand and are skeptic of some small part, I do not even ask that creationism be explained as a whole).

And twice there was no answer.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue May 20, 2014 3:47 pm
creationistPosts: 45Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:55 am

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Precambrian would be evidence for your point, given that the fossil record itself doesn’t even give the appearance of things poofing into existence (my mention of basic bauplans and mineralized shells (of which Sabellidites is an example, incidentally) present in the Precambrian went disregarded). Recall as well that the paper you yourself cited concluded that there was no "poof" as you describe it. That being said, I just remembered I had this in my stash of papers (I admit that was rather silly of me): http://www.biol.uw.edu.pl/ewolucja/ludzie/81.pdf


You're dodging and the paper you cited doesn't answer my question.

Do we find brains and eyes, among other internal organs, already interconnected and communicating in any precambrian organisms.

I'm assuming I don't need to define what a 'brain' or an 'eye is for you.
Tue May 20, 2014 4:33 pm
creationistPosts: 45Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:55 am

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

HEY RA I know you're scared to reply to me and I completely understand why but answer just this one thing.

You said

Wrong. As I have already explained to you, mutations do not 'destroy' information.


Then how do you explain deletion mutations? What do actual deletions in the genome do to it? Why is that not a loss of information? How is that not a deterioration of the genome?

I'm really really struggling to wrap my brain around this dishonest rationalization of yours. Please explain. Feel free to look up 'deletion mutation' in case you don't know what they are. I don't know of a video I can link for you.
Tue May 20, 2014 4:43 pm
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 813Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

creationist wrote:HEY RA I know you're scared to reply to me and I completely understand why but answer just this one thing.

You said

Wrong. As I have already explained to you, mutations do not 'destroy' information.


Then how do you explain deletion mutations? What do actual deletions in the genome do to it? Why is that not a loss of information? How is that not a deterioration of the genome?

I'm really really struggling to wrap my brain around this dishonest rationalization of yours. Please explain. Feel free to look up 'deletion mutation' in case you don't know what they are. I don't know of a video I can link for you.

This wasn't adressed to be, but a thought occurred;

If we admit that deletations destroy "information" (not that I can say that for certain, I'm neither a biologist nor a have studied information theory, but couldn't a deleltion also add "information" in a way of activating a dormant gene sequence? Or is "information" merely the number of possible base pairs on a sequence?), would you admit that the other mutations either modify or add "information"?
Tue May 20, 2014 5:49 pm
creationistPosts: 45Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:55 am

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

but couldn't a deleltion also add "information" in a way of activating a dormant gene sequence?


If this could be shown to actually happen you wouldn't be 'adding information'. You may be 'adding a new function' but it would come by way of deleting information in the process.

Or is "information" merely the number of possible base pairs on a sequence?


I've tried to define information as 'specified' information and not 'Shannon' information but the people here will only accept the definition made up by the atheist evolutionists which is common. For this instance it really doesn't matter which definition you use. It all applies the same.

would you admit that the other mutations either modify or add "information"?


This all depends on which definition you use for 'information'.

Here's the real reason I ask. I do a lot of work for a local university in my area. Others have asked about this earlier so here's your answer. Because of my relationship with the faculty there they allow me to look up and read the papers that are cited from PLOS and such. Other's I just outright buy. $10 or $20 for a paper is nothing, it helps the people that wrote it, and thanks them for their work. I don't always agree with their conclusions but on the whole their science within the paper is good.

So every once in a while a group of us get together for lunch or dinner and talk about whatever. Usually it's really a bunch of nothing, work related mostly, but every once in a while we get on the subject of creation/evolution because they know how much I love the topic. We then throw evidence back and forth and the atheist/evolutionist members of the faculty have been very good at looking at both sides and help answer questions about evolution just as I and others answer questions about creation.

The evolutionists in the group have heard of Ra through me and were interested to see how the Ra and OFNF debate was going. Not much to report so far but I did share with them the idea that deletions don't deteriorate the genome or destroy information. None of the evolutionists could understand Ra's rationalization for saying this and the biology guys were scratching their heads as to how he would defend this idea short of not knowing that deletion mutations occur. When these guys can't come up with a rationalization then I know something's wrong. Or Ra-ong as the case might be. The science community doesn't appear to back Ra up on this one.

Hence my question. I think it's just another ad hoc Ra-tionalization as he's known to do but I wanted to give him a chance to explain himself since it appears even the evolutionist science camp can't figure out his approach.

Keep in mind that it doesn't matter which definition you use for 'information' whether it be specified or shannon. A deletion mutation deletes something. Why is that not a 'loss' of information and how does that not deteriorate the genome. That's what I, and my university buddies, all want to know.
Tue May 20, 2014 6:21 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3214Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Greetings,

Creationists, such as yourself, are claiming that everything was created "perfect" and that, since then, there has been "deterioration in the genome" due to "loss of information".

That simply isn't the case - as we keep explaining.

Individuals may suffer a mutation that results in, either, their death (through miscarriage or in early adulthood) or infertility (male/female and tendency in females to miscarry). As such, these mutations are weeded out of the population. The species continues without these lethal gene mutations.

In other words, the species' genome is not "deteriorated" - only the affected individual's, who generally is unable to pass on their mutation due to early death or inability to reproduce, including due to not being able to find anyone with whom to have children.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Tue May 20, 2014 6:45 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

AronRa wrote:There is a type of mutation that would render a gene irreparable; in which case, it may be replaced with another gene of novel function. Either way, the genome still doesn't deteriorate the way you said it would.

?



Lest see what real science has to say:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.long

Quotes from the article
Although mutation provides the fuel for phenotypic evolution, it also imposes a substantial burden on fitness through the production of predominantly deleterious alleles


in the human population, deletions are also 2.3 to 4.1 times more common than insertions



the expected decline in fitness associated with mutations in coding DNA alone appears to be on the order of 1% to 3% per generation.




although there is considerable uncertainty in the preceding numbers, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the per-generation reduction in fitness due to recurrent mutation is at least 1% in humans



So with that said, do you accept my premise? Do you accept that mutations that deteriorate are more frequent than does who create new information?
If not please provide research papers that show the opposite
IF yes then you have to accept the conclusion that genomes deteriorate as time passes.



Now let me ask you, is a defective gene for dinosaur teeth in chickens consistent with the creationist 'model'?

What about broken primate genes in humans


Why are you insisting in changing the topic? You already asked a question and I we are still working on that question, I won´t reply questions that are unrelated to this single issue
Tue May 20, 2014 7:24 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Creationists, such as yourself, are claiming that everything was created "perfect" and that, since then, there has been "deterioration in the genome" due to "loss of information".

That simply isn't the case - as we keep explaining.

Individuals may suffer a mutation that results in, either, their death (through miscarriage or in early adulthood) or infertility (male/female and tendency in females to miscarry). As such, these mutations are weeded out of the population. The species continues without these lethal gene mutations.

In other words, the species' genome is not "deteriorated" - only the affected individual's, who generally is unable to pass on their mutation due to early death or inability to reproduce, including due to not being able to find anyone with whom to have children.

Kindest regards,

James


In my last comment I posted the paper you asked for. let me know if you accept the premise "mutations that destroy information are more frecuent tan those who créate new information
Tue May 20, 2014 7:25 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Isotelus
No, the methods are fine. The discordances are there. The suggestion that evolution is too flexible is erroneous because given what was known about how genes segregate, discordances were predicted decades before the technology and computer programs were available to even sequence and test genomes. You say that any other explanation can account for discordant trees, but you have not provided any defensible argument against the validity of ILS, gene flow, etc.


You can also organize things like, cakes, cars, computers etc. In family trees, they will obviously be discordant trees.

My point is that everything can be organized in discordant trees.

Ok so please tel me more about that “prediction” what degree of discordances does evolution allow, and how do you know it?

For example a gene in humans and gorillas but not in chimps

- A gene in humans and dogs but not in chimps

-A gene in human and fish but not in chimps

¿what kind of discordances can evolution account for and how do you know it? Please provide an equation or an statistical model that includes all the important variables.
Tue May 20, 2014 8:12 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 13 of 49
 [ 977 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests