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 17 of 49
 [ 977 posts ] 
onceforgivennowfree
Author Message
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3485Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Wow! Creationist responded to something I posted (meaning he does not have me on ignore, so one wonders why I have gotten the cold shoulder for so long) and completely missed the point Inferno was trying to make.

creationist wrote:
Try answering Inferno’s question above and you will finally start to understand how DNA works. It is only analogous to our language; it is not our language.


Fine

[snipped for space]

Let me try


Yet you do not attempt to answer the question, now do you? However, you still have the audacity to call everyone else on this forum dishonest.

You do understand that the point of Inferno’s question is to demonstrate that DNA does not work how you think it works. Inferno points out that in his hypothetical that sometimes a loss of DNA can translate to a gain in protein use and a gain in DNA can lead to a loss of protein use. The fact that you cannot answer this simple question highlights just how incorrect your understanding of DNA works. Does anyone else need any more proof that you do not know the first thing about DNA?

creationist wrote:You just tell me whether it's an addition of information or a loss. (eg. 1 = loss, 2 = add, etc.)
We start with the DNA sequence GTC-GTT-GTA-GCA, 12 letters long. I've already highlighted the codons.

1) From the original sequence, we delete a codon. GTC-GTT-GCA.

2) From that sequence, we delete a codon. GTC-GTT

3) From that sequence, we delete a codon. GTT

4) From that sequence, we delete a codon. OOPS! Nothing left!

So in a creationists world we have now effectively deteriorated the genome. Of course, to some of you evo's, we have somehow added information or created a new function or whatever else happens in your fairy tale world when the above example plays out in the genome.


:facepalm:

You later go on to accuse Inferno of this, so I will throw the question back at you; what evidence do you have that this actually happens in nature. When have we ever seen evidence that a genome suddenly blinks out of existence.

creationist wrote:This is the thing about 'hypothetical situations'. You can stack the odds completely in your favor. How does Inferno know that his scenario is accurate? How does he know that it actually changes 'how many proteins can be used'? How does he know what these effects will have on the rest of the genome and what other functions may have been affected by any of the changes he made above? How do the changes he put in his scenario affect the epigenome?


As has been pointed out from the beginning of this discussion, AronRa gives several examples of the hypotheticals Inferno posted above. If only you would read this thread for comprehension, you would already know of all the examples AronRa has given alone. In addition, I will say it again, we have no evidence that what you have posted as a hypothetical actually happens.

creationist wrote:So this lays out, yet again, what I said earlier. You guys are so indoctrinated that all someone has to do is simply type anything out in whatever post and it's all of a sudden absolute law and truth. Even hypothetical situations are accepted as some kind of online peer review. You guys are wanting SO BADLY for evolution to be true that you'll just take anything and everything someone writes down or types out as 'science' even though Inferno clearly said it was a hypothetical situation.


:lol: :facepalm:

This is where you missed the point. I know Inferno asked hypotheticals, but they were to demonstrate a point, one you and dandan keep missing. Seeing as how you still did not answer Inferno’s question, would you like to give it another shot after I have pointed out that no one is accepting what Inferno says as gospel (and I have no idea why one would think that in the first place) and understand that they are just hypothetical? Again, if you answer Inferno’s simple questions, you will start to understand how DNA works and why your protests are based solely on your ignorance of DNA. One can only assume the reason you (and dandan) refuse to answer such a simple question is because you are afraid to question your preconceived notions.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu May 22, 2014 8:55 pm
YIM WWW
creationistPosts: 45Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:55 am

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

This is where you missed the point. I know Inferno asked hypotheticals, but they were to demonstrate a point, one you and dandan keep missing. Seeing as how you still did not answer Inferno’s question, would you like to give it another shot after I have pointed out that no one is accepting what Inferno says as gospel (and I have no idea why one would think that in the first place) and understand that they are just hypothetical? Again, if you answer Inferno’s simple questions, you will start to understand how DNA works and why your protests are based solely on your ignorance of DNA. One can only assume the reason you (and dandan) refuse to answer such a simple question is because you are afraid to question your preconceived notions.


There was nothing to accept!

I'll make this real easy for both of us.

Do you accept my example as a valid example?
Thu May 22, 2014 9:01 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3485Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

creationist wrote:
This is where you missed the point. I know Inferno asked hypotheticals, but they were to demonstrate a point, one you and dandan keep missing. Seeing as how you still did not answer Inferno’s question, would you like to give it another shot after I have pointed out that no one is accepting what Inferno says as gospel (and I have no idea why one would think that in the first place) and understand that they are just hypothetical? Again, if you answer Inferno’s simple questions, you will start to understand how DNA works and why your protests are based solely on your ignorance of DNA. One can only assume the reason you (and dandan) refuse to answer such a simple question is because you are afraid to question your preconceived notions.


There was nothing to accept!

I'll make this real easy for both of us.

Do you accept my example as a valid example?


:facepalm:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
creationist wrote:You just tell me whether it's an addition of information or a loss. (eg. 1 = loss, 2 = add, etc.)
We start with the DNA sequence GTC-GTT-GTA-GCA, 12 letters long. I've already highlighted the codons.

1) From the original sequence, we delete a codon. GTC-GTT-GCA.

2) From that sequence, we delete a codon. GTC-GTT

3) From that sequence, we delete a codon. GTT

4) From that sequence, we delete a codon. OOPS! Nothing left!

So in a creationists world we have now effectively deteriorated the genome. Of course, to some of you evo's, we have somehow added information or created a new function or whatever else happens in your fairy tale world when the above example plays out in the genome.


:facepalm:

You later go on to accuse Inferno of this, so I will throw the question back at you; what evidence do you have that this actually happens in nature. When have we ever seen evidence that a genome suddenly blinks out of existence.


I posted that in the comment directly above your latest comment. You do not read for comprehension, now do you?

Now, will you please go back and answer Inferno's questions? They are quite simple.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu May 22, 2014 9:09 pm
YIM WWW
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 878Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:Such kind of mutation has never been reported, but it´s theoretically possible.

Most biologists would disagree with you on that assertion but nonetheless, if you are right, would it mean that detoriations of the genome of around between 4 000 to 16 000 "kinds" (because I have yet to see a precise and standard definition of the term and a definite number of the "kinds" present on the ark) have led to the 6.5 millions species we see today?

Thus detoration of the genome leads to adaptation of environement? Thats actually a testable hypothesis, if you could show a paper which shows what detoration lead to what species and/or adaptation and perhaps identify from which animal all species within a "kind" originated from?
"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
Thu May 22, 2014 9:45 pm
creationistPosts: 45Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:55 am

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Is my hypothetical example valid? Yes or no.
Thu May 22, 2014 9:50 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3485Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

creationist wrote:Is my hypothetical example valid? Yes or no.


:facepalm:

Since your hypothetical is not based on reality, no. I thought that would have been clear from the section I quoted.

I will preempt what you are going to say now by again quoting from the above post I made:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
creationist wrote:This is the thing about 'hypothetical situations'. You can stack the odds completely in your favor. How does Inferno know that his scenario is accurate? How does he know that it actually changes 'how many proteins can be used'? How does he know what these effects will have on the rest of the genome and what other functions may have been affected by any of the changes he made above? How do the changes he put in his scenario affect the epigenome?


As has been pointed out from the beginning of this discussion, AronRa gives several examples of the hypotheticals Inferno posted above. If only you would read this thread for comprehension, you would already know of all the examples AronRa has given alone. In addition, I will say it again, we have no evidence that what you have posted as a hypothetical actually happens.


Please start reading for comprehension.

Now, will you please go back and answer Inferno’s questions? Yes or no (creationists seem to think this helps them get their questions answered, let us see if it works for me).
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu May 22, 2014 10:05 pm
YIM WWW
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Inferno wrote:
dandan wrote:One of you r 7 “facts” that support evolution was that complexity increases, so please provide a peer reviewed article that proves that on average complexity increases as time passes.


I already did that here. He_who_is_nobody did it earlier, Dragan_Glas did it and AronRa did it, too. I don't know what your problem is...

dandan wrote:Ii can´t believe you are basing your argument on the ambiguity of the definitions of the terms. The vast majority of deleterious mutations are due to a loss of information, previously a given portion of DNA was functional, after the mutation, this portion of DNA no longer has these function.


As I pointed out, you're confusing terms here, that's why we're so adamant on you defining your terms properly.
A loss of information is, by your definition, a stretch of DNA which loses a letter. By contrast, a gain of information would be a stretch of DNA which has a letter added.
I already explained that both of these can be either beneficial or deleterious, depending on what the DNA was coding for. I also explained that letters may simply be switched or jumbled, which by your definition would be neither a loss nor a gain of information. However, both can also be beneficial or deleterious, depending on the DNA.

You are also wrong that "the vast majority of deleterious mutations are due to a loss of information". I haven't ever seen that in the literature nor do I think we will ever see it. As I pointed out, you can have silent, nonsense or missense point mutations, depending on the base nucleotide being changed. You can also have deletion, duplication, insertions, inversions and translocations affecting the nucleotides. All of these happen, as far as I know, at roughly the same intervals. Only deletion would fit your idea of a "loss of information".


please present an article that concludes that complexity on average increases, showing 1 or 2 examples is not enough
Thu May 22, 2014 11:26 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

MarsCydonia wrote:
dandan wrote:Such kind of mutation has never been reported, but it´s theoretically possible.

Most biologists would disagree with you on that assertion but nonetheless, if you are right, would it mean that detoriations of the genome of around between 4 000 to 16 000 "kinds" (because I have yet to see a precise and standard definition of the term and a definite number of the "kinds" present on the ark) have led to the 6.5 millions species we see today?

Thus detoration of the genome leads to adaptation of environement? Thats actually a testable hypothesis, if you could show a paper which shows what detoration lead to what species and/or adaptation and perhaps identify from which animal all species within a "kind" originated from?


It seems like someone saws bills Nyes debate against Ken Ham…

That is a strawman, creationists say that only land reptiles, mammals and birds boarded the ark, so 16,000 “kinds” are accounting for the 25,000 species of reptiles birds and mammal.

Yes deterioration in the genome can account for some diversity, for example dogs came from wolves.
But if you start with a bacteria-like organism, you can´t deteriorate that bacteria and get a human.
Thu May 22, 2014 11:36 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

he-who-is-noboby
First off, stating molecule to man can be construed as a straw man against evolutionary theory, since creationists use that phrase as a type of shorthand for their misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Second, even based on your bastardized definition of information, I have already shown that using just mutations and selection, complexity increases. Thus, your argument is a straw man, because you are still insisting for us silly evolutionists to prove that the molecule to man evolution you hold in your head is correct. It is not, and no one is arguing for it.


Honestly is that the best you can do? You presented a cartoon, I was expecting a peer reviewed article, so please provide an article that shows that complexity on average increases.
Thu May 22, 2014 11:40 pm
IsotelusBloggerUser avatarPosts: 317Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote: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.


Inanimate objects are not a suitable analogy for the simple reason that discordance occurs when a gene tree doesn’t match a species tree, and I’m fairly confident that cakes don’t have genes. That issue is compounded by the fact that there is no inherently correct tree in any classification of cakes, cars, etc., that will form supported and consistent nested hierarchies, largely because the parameters are entirely subjective. As a result, discordances could neither be properly predicted nor their likelihood assessed as in a phylogeny of living organisms.

The degree of discordances required to falsify evolution would be those that outweigh the concordances, i.e. consistent incongruence between independent morphological and molecular trees to a high degree of significance. The last part is key, as statistical methods function to determine quantitatively at what point inconsistencies become problematic. The very papers you cited earlier provide examples of the statistical models in question. This study actually addresses your questions by way of what I mentioned above, though I’m assuming you don’t have access to it, which is unfortunate (not that this stopped you from citing it): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19307040. The gorilla paper you cited also provided an example of a more relevant model you’re asking for, and that one is open access. It’s abbreviated CoalHMM and referred to as coalescence theory (mathematical model: http://physwww.mcmaster.ca/~higgsp/756/ ... ealogy.pdf), which samples genes from a population to assess the probabilities of matching topologies in gene and species trees. In this case it identified the occurrence of ILS. Recall also in my first response to you that coalescence can also estimate values for population size and divergence time, among other things, as was done here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3044849/. The authors used CoalHMM to predict that roughly 0.9% of orangutan alleles would be more similar to humans. Following the analysis, a value of 0.8% was retrieved.
Returning to the first paper, they note that multispecies coalescence (sampling from multiple populations) can predict the particular frequencies of gene trees in relation to a species tree, i.e., how much discordance and where. In the case of a three-species tree, the instance where the gene tree matches the species tree is the probably the correct one, with the occurrence of other topologies being roughly equal (this was seen in the Gorilla paper as well). They used three species of Australian grass finches and sampling 28 gene trees predicted that particular gene topologies would occur 16.0002 times for ((acuticauda,hecki),cincta), and 5.999 times for ((acuticauda,cincta),hecki) and (hecki, cincta),acuticauda). The actual results found by an independent paper were 16, 7, and 5 times, respectively, with the (a,h),c) concordant tree being the correct one. The above examples demonstrate that despite your objections to the contrary, the discordance present is explainable, quantifiable, and outweighed by congruent trees.


creationist wrote: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 take no stock in any accusations you choose to project onto me or others in this thread, since I already told you what has been found in the Precambrian, and that paper does more than just answer your question. I’ll reiterate. Basic bauplans and mineralized body parts have their origins in the Precambrian, as well as gonads and the digestive tract. You are making a hasty generalization and suppressing evidence by fixating on certain absent structures and marginalizing those that are present. It could be possible that brains, eyes, were not present until the Cambrian, but it is not outside the realm of reality and empiricism that the animals with some level of fine preservation also had brains and eyes. That possibility is greater given recent molecular and morphological studies indicating the Precambrian origins of the brains in bilaterians, but your dismissiveness towards peer-reviewed literature precludes me even bothering to post them. Equally problematic is the fact that the question you are asking makes as little sense as your earlier comments regarding single cells and embryos. It almost sounds like you are suggesting that evolution posits the gradual interconnection of various organs.
Punnet square summer camp: Be there or be square!
Thu May 22, 2014 11:46 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3485Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:That is a strawman, creationists say that only land reptiles, mammals and birds boarded the ark, so 16,000 “kinds” are accounting for the 25,000 species of reptiles birds and mammal.


Here is a creationist that says frogs were on the ark.

Weird how you seem to not agree with any of the creationists on this forum (Onceforgivennowfree and creationist included), yet still proclaim what creationist do and do not believe/accept.

However, we silly evolutionists should just know what a creationist means when they are talking.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu May 22, 2014 11:47 pm
YIM WWW
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Ok, since all of you seem to have problems with the use of the term “information” I´ll try to use a different wording.

We know that most mutations are deleterious, (I already pesented an article)*

We know that most deleterious mutations are not removed by natural selection

We know that mutations accumulate from generation to generation.

How can you accept these facts and accept evolution at the same time?

If you accept these facts it follows logically that the net effect of mutations + natural selection is degradation, evolution predicts the opposite, mutations + natural selection is supposed to create complex “mammalian” brains from simple “reptilian” brains and complex eyes from simple light receptors, how can you achieve these trough a mechanism that will on average cause degradation?

*You can use any definition for deleterious that you what, the conclusion won´t change.


But feel free to provide a scientific article that shows that complexity on average increases. After accumulating mutations natural selection and other unguided mechanisms, please present the article. If you do it, I will become an evolutionist*


*Complexity should be defined as the amount of functional DNA in an organism, and/or the amount of functional parts and systems in an organism. For example a mammalian brain would be more complex than a reptilian brain because it has more functional parts.
Fri May 23, 2014 12:06 am
Darkprophet232User avatarPosts: 226Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:42 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Dandan, do yourself a favor a try not to reference or talk about the flood, and even ignore it (which shouldn't be problem based on how much else you've ignored) if others bring it up. If there's one thing even a scientific layman such as myself can grasp, is that trying to maintain the flood myth makes the lot of you look like superstitious children who refuse to give up on their favorite fairy tale.
“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
Fri May 23, 2014 12:08 am
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
dandan wrote:That is a strawman, creationists say that only land reptiles, mammals and birds boarded the ark, so 16,000 “kinds” are accounting for the 25,000 species of reptiles birds and mammal.


Here is a creationist that says frogs were on the ark.

Weird how you seem to not agree with any of the creationists on this forum (Onceforgivennowfree and creationist included), yet still proclaim what creationist do and do not believe/accept.

However, we silly evolutionists should just know what a creationist means when they are talking.


According to the bible only land animals boarded the ark, so it´s hard to tell if a frog should be considered a land or a sea animal. But I won´t be answering stuff unrelated to the main topic anymore
Fri May 23, 2014 12:10 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 878Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:It seems like someone saws bills Nyes debate against Ken Ham…

That is a strawman, creationists say that only land reptiles, mammals and birds boarded the ark, so 16,000 “kinds” are accounting for the 25,000 species of reptiles birds and mammal.

Yes deterioration in the genome can account for some diversity, for example dogs came from wolves.
But if you start with a bacteria-like organism, you can´t deteriorate that bacteria and get a human.

I have not watched the debate but I have heard people discuss it. From what I remember, they said that Ken Ham lowered the number of "kinds" to a new figure during the debate. 6.5 millions is the estimated number of land species. When you include the number of ocean species, the figure rises to 8.7 millions.

A strawman is a misrepresentation of a position. When it comes to the ark and the number of "kinds" on board, it is difficult to strawman the creationists position when that position is often changing! (See the above Ken Ham exemple, not even counting the debate about clean and unclean animals on board of the ark). However, the number of species today is not a strawman and I would very much like to see you substantiate there are only 25,000 species of reptiles, birds and mammals.

I would like also some idea behind the process that detoriation leads to adaptation and speciation.
"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
Fri May 23, 2014 12:28 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 878Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:According to the bible only land animals boarded the ark, so it´s hard to tell if a frog should be considered a land or a sea animal. But I won´t be answering stuff unrelated to the main topic anymore

:shock:

Frogs cannot survive in saltwater so they are definitely land animals. Of course, you could always say that frogs are a detoriation of an unidentified sea animal "kind" that lived 4000 years ago (though sea animals could not have survived the flood without numerous miraculous interventions).

Yes, you should definitely go back to the topic of "information".
"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
Fri May 23, 2014 12:33 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3190Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Greetings,

dandan wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Here is a creationist that says frogs were on the ark.

Weird how you seem to not agree with any of the creationists on this forum (Onceforgivennowfree and creationist included), yet still proclaim what creationist do and do not believe/accept.

However, we silly evolutionists should just know what a creationist means when they are talking.


According to the bible only land animals boarded the ark, so it´s hard to tell if a frog should be considered a land or a sea animal. But I won´t be answering stuff unrelated to the main topic anymore

There are a number of misconceptions regarding what and how many animals went on the Ark - particularly amongst Creationists.

In order to cut down on the numbers, they have to equate "kind" with genus or even the higher level, family - but this means that Mankind would obviously be well and truly part of the apes. In order to avoid this, Creationists have to either use much lower taxonomic levels - to ensure that Mankind and apes are not in the same boat, so to speak(!) - or use a mix-and-match solution: animals which don't affect Mankind's classification can be grouped under family or genus, those that do - simians/apes - would be classified at the lowest level necessary to keep Mankind "special".

There's the added complication - which is to what I was referring earlier - of the fact that most people (particularly Creationists) are unaware of something rather important.

1) "Clean" animals were brought on the Ark "by sevens"(!);
2) "Unclean" animals "by twos".

This causes quite a lot of problems number-wise.

The online KJV gives:

[2] Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
[3] Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Later, in verses 8 and 9:

[8] Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
[9] There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

And in verses 13-14:

[13] In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
[14] They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

Genesis 8:6-8 is the only place where specific species are mentioned: the raven and the dove released by Noah to find dry land:

[6] And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:
[7] And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
[8] Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground

This is why I said earlier that "kind" is whatever a Creationist says it is - depending on their knowledge of the Bible and the problems inherent in reconciling the above contradictions.

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
Fri May 23, 2014 1:05 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 565Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:Ok so please provide a peer reviewed paper that states that mutations that create information are more frequent than does who destroy it. I already show a paper that shows that most mutations are degenerative mutations, why can´t you do the same?

Please try not to make a straw man,
It is ironic that you think I would create a straw-man to contest the straw-man you created, and which you keep presenting no matter how many times its falsehood has been revealed to you.

I already explain what I mean by information, so please provide an article that refutes my premise.
I don't think I could find any science article which says that "dandan's argument is a straw-man which ignores natural selection, and ignores the fact that most mutations are neutral, rather than 'detrimental', and does not cumulatively eventually 'deteriorate' the genome in any case". What we do have however are articles showing how diversity is mapped by various mutations in the genome of particular groups, which illustrate the same thing, being rather the opposite of everything you're saying here.

One of you r 7 “facts” that support evolution was that complexity increases,
Actually it was 9 facts, and they're 'facts' because they're all objectively verifiable -unlike any of the mythology you believe, which I remind you are literally fairy tales by definition. So just to be clear, I really do have facts, and what you believe really are fairy tales.

so please provide a peer reviewed article that proves that on average complexity increases as time passes.
I already did early on this thread, but creationists typically don't pay attention to anything they don't want to see or acknowledge; you certainly don't. But since you asked, let me show you where complexity increases through the creation of new genes:

"The evolution of genomes been primarily driven by single basepair mutation, chromosomal rearrangement, and gene duplication, with the latter being the key mechanism for generating new genes and biological processes that facilitated the evolution of complex organisms from primitive ones."
Lineage-Specific Gene Duplication and Loss in Human and Great Ape Evolution

And here is the study I cited earlier where complexity is increased even through the deletion of genes, leading to beneficial mutations occurring from genes that were rendered dysfunctional.

"Here we identify molecular events particularly likely to produce significant regulatory changes in humans: complete deltion of sequences otherwise highly conserved between chimpanzees and other mammals. We confirm 510 deletions in humans, which fall almost exclusively in the non-coding regions and are enriched near genes involved in steroid signalling and neural function.

...To discover human-specific deletions (hDELs) on a genome-wide scale, we identified regions of the chimpanzee genome14 with a clear macaque orthologue, but no closely related sequence in humans (suppliemtary information). This identified 37,251 ancestral primate sequences lost in humans, spanning 34.0 megabases (Mb; 1.17%) of the chimpanzee genome. Only 1 of 510 sequence-validated hCONDELs removes a protein coding region, corresponding to a previously known 92bp deletion in CMAH. All other sequence-validated hCONDELs map to non-protein coding regions of the genome Humans also fail to form the penile spines commonly found in other animals, including chimpanzees, macaques, and mice. Simplified penile morphology tens to be associated with monogamous reproductive strategies in primates. Ablation of spines decreases tactile sensitivity and increases the duration of intromission, indicating their loss in the human lineage may be associated with the longer duration of copulation in our species relative to chimpanzees. This fits with an adaptive suite, including feminization of the male canine dentition, moderate sized testes with low sperm motility, and concealed ovulation with permanently enlarged mammary glands that suggests our ancestors evolved numerous morphological haracteristics associated with pairbonding and increased paternal care.

...Another deletion removes a forebrain subventricular zone enhancer near the tumour suppressor gene growth arrest and DNA-damageinducible gamma (GADD45G)1,12, a loss correlated with expansion of brain regions in humans."

Human-specific loss of regulatory DNA and the evolution of human-specific traits

MarsCydonia wrote:I probably know less about genes that anyone else here. Are there any mutations that add information to the genome?
dandan wrote:Such kind of mutation has never been reported.
That's creationism for you, always wrong all the time. Here is another article showing the mechanisms now associated with the creation of new genes:

"Many mechanisms for the origination of new genes are known, such as tandem gene duplication, retrotransposition, exon shuffling, and gene fusion. By these mechanisms, the origination of new protein coding genes involved "mother" genes that served as blueprints for the new genes. However recent comparative genomic analysis identified a few "motherless" or de novo genes in fly and yeast, which originates from non-coding DNA sequences."
A Human-Spefic De Novo Protein-Coding Gene Associated with Human Brain Functions

And this article, showing where beneficial mutations have been precisely defined and positively identified.

"An advantageous mutation spreads from generation to generation in a population until individuals that carry it, because of their higher reproductive success, complete replace those that do not. This process, commonly known as positive Darwinian selection, requires the selected mutation to induce a new non-neutral heritable phenotypic trait, and this has been shown to occur unexpectedly frequently during recent human evolution.
...different approaches now converge to conclude that a substantial proportion of non-deleterious mutations are indeed weakly to strongly advantageous."

Human and Non-Human Primate Genomes Share Hotspots of Positive Selection

That could hardly be more opposed to what you've been saying up to now. Which is why the one thing I find most amazing about creationists is how anyone can be so consistently proven to be absolutely wrong about absolutely everything, 100% of the time, for such a long time, and still believe theirs is the absolute truth.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Fri May 23, 2014 2:00 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 878Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:We know that most mutations are deleterious, (I already pesented an article).

I am not the most knowledgeable person there is about mutations so I may be wrong on aquiescing on this point but even if I do, it will not change the conclusion.
dandan wrote:We know that most deleterious mutations are not removed by natural selection

No, we know that they are. What you are saying is that natural selection, the mechanism that leads to speciation, which most creationists agree is a fact, is non-existant. A lot of deleterious mutations are not selected against but those that really cause a problem are and the benificial mutations are selected for.
dandan wrote:We know that mutations accumulate from generation to generation.

Agreed. Let's use an anology that you yourself used earlier to see how natural selection selects against cumulative deleterious mutations:
dandan wrote:if you randomly change 1 letter from a book, in most of the cases you will destroy information, but it wouldn´t be a big deal, people will still understand the book. But if you repeat this over and over again, you will reach a point where you no longer have a book with information, but rather a bunch of random letters without meaning

You seem to be Under the impression that people will still continue to pick-up the book until there's nothing left of it. Once a book makes no sense, people usually do not read it (unless they've been indoctrinated to), thus cumulative deleterious mutations are selected against because we are indeed talking about one book, not the whole library. If you believe the whole library gets those deleterious mutations, please feel free to provide a paper on this.
dandan wrote:How can you accept these facts and accept evolution at the same time?

If you accept these facts it follows logically that the net effect of mutations + natural selection is degradation, evolution predicts the opposite, mutations + natural selection is supposed to create complex “mammalian” brains from simple “reptilian” brains and complex eyes from simple light receptors, how can you achieve these trough a mechanism that will on average cause degradation?

Because we've reached an entirely different conclusion on what the average is. I know you are under the impression that an overwhelming majority of scientists do not know what they are talking about and you do but perhaps you should look closer at your own knowledge and conclusions.
dandan wrote:Such kind of mutation has never been reported, but it´s theoretically possible.

See, that is a wrong conclusion, such mutations have been reported, numerously. A frog is not a sea "kind" either.
dandan wrote:feel free to provide a scientific article that shows that complexity on average increases. After accumulating mutations natural selection and other unguided mechanisms, please present the article. If you do it, I will become an evolutionist

As I said, I am not the most knowledgeable person on this subject but I have not seen you provide a paper that shows that complexity, on average, decreases.

The bigger pictures remains that even if shown such a paper, I doubt you would accept a well-established scientific principle like the theory of evolution. Remember when I asked "why have you not rejected creationism", twice, and not a single creationist answered? It is because you are comitted to creationism. If want to argue that evolution as not passed your standard for evidence I am perfectly fine with that but that does not make creationism true by default and you cannot expect me to believe you have applied the same standard of evidence for creationism.
"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
Fri May 23, 2014 4:08 am
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

I can't believe what I'm reading here...
I go to such pains to explain everything in exquisite detail, going as far as to list 12 different papers and I get this and this in return? And you dare call us dishonest and uninformed? Wow, just... wow.
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Fri May 23, 2014 9:42 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 17 of 49
 [ 977 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests