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 22 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

DutchLiam84 wrote:Hey wow wow wow, let's not forget dandan gave us four statements:
It would be fallacious to conclude that the ancestor of dogs talked in the past because they also have the FOXP2 gene ¿agree?

It would be falasious to conclude that our ancestors had tail just because we have the WNT3A gene ¿agree?

It would be fallacious to conclude that our ancestors had horns or 6 fingers, just because some humans are born with horns or 6 fingers ¿agree?

It would be fallacious to conclude that our ancestors had tails just because some humans are born with tails ¿agree?

2 people told him why he's wrong and he just ignored it.
Please respond to them dandan! Or are you just here trolling trolling trolling....rawhide?


At this moment, it is dandan (1) to six (or more). If dandan cannot comment on everything brought up, it does not mean dandan is trolling. It means dandan is human and has a life outside of this forum.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue May 27, 2014 11:06 pm
YIM WWW
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Yeah, but in the meantime he has a track record of ignoring almost everything. 22 pages in and exactly how much has this conversation progressed?
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Tue May 27, 2014 11:22 pm
WWW
fightofthejellyfishUser avatarPosts: 62Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 5:34 amLocation: Australia Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:Ok, evolution doesn’t states that complexity always increases (obviously) but evolution states that in the long term and on average complexity tends to increase.
and
dandan wrote:No, one example of increased complexity is not enough, you have to prove that an increase in complexity is the dominant trend.


Round and round and round we go...

dandan,

Back on page 11 - in terms simple enough for an eight year old - I wrote this:
Here we are more than 10 pages on and you've still got your fingers planted firmly in your ears trying as hard as you can to not understand anything said to you.

I'm going to try again in the hope that your desire not to learn anything can somehow be overwhelmed.

The population of this planet is somewhere around several-thousand-quintillion the vast majority of which are bacteria. Only the tiniest fraction of life on this planet are from lineages that have consistently increased in complexity. Why the heck would we have to "prove that an increase in complexity is the dominant trend" when that clearly is not the case?

In fact, the only people who would need to "prove that an increase in complexity is the dominant trend" would be creationists because that is what you would expect of an intelligent designer with a goal in mind. Which is why you've wrongly presupposed that is the trend.

Yes those outliers have brought the average complexity up over time, but only because there wasn't as much scope for decreasing complexity, however where that was possible, in the form of viruses, that occurred too.

The "dominant trend" of evolution is diversification, it is for species to stay firmly planted in their niche, while simultaneously branching out into new environments or behaviours. This change in environment or behaviour can drive both new functions to develop as well as old functions to become obsolete, to wither away or be repurposed. That some organisms are descended from lineages that have gained more than they lost (an overall increase in complexity) shouldn't be a surprise.
Wed May 28, 2014 2:36 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 565Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:Ok, evolution doesn’t states that complexity always increases (obviously) but evolution states that in the long term and on average complexity tends to increase.

Do you have any peer reviewed source that concludes this?
Yes, and you ignored them. Are you asking me to search out even more articles for you to ignore?

It would be great if you provide an article that actually proves this, rather than an article that presupposes that we came from simpler organisms. I think it´s a fare requirement.
As I have already explained, (and you ignored) those are not presuppositions, and we can prove they are not. In fact, I have already done that, and you ignored that too. Remember I told you, it is not an 'assumption' that humans are apes; it is an established fact. I then showed you how you can simply look it up to confirm this for yourself. I even translated colloquial terms to make it easy for you. Simiiforme = monkey, Catarrhine = 'Old World' monkey, Hominoidea = 'ape', Hominidae = 'great ape'. Now dandan, do you concede the fact that humans are classified as a subset of the taxonomic family of apes?

If you don’t provide such source, don´t expect to convince anyone who doens´t already believes in evolution.
The problem is getting you to actually look at what is shown to you, rather than seeing you dismiss everything you don't understand, which is everything so far.

Any evidence that it is actually true, anything that would satisfy the experts in the field would certainly satisfy me too. So far, your presentations have failed to impress anyone who has ever seen it. Your failure rate is 100%. Has any evolutionary scientist ever changed their position on discovery of your evidence? Or do they all understand it better than you do?
Why can´t you answer unambiguously?
I did. Whatever would satisfy me, if it is legitimate, then it will have already satisfied many of the expert specialists. If you're misrepresenting it, or misunderstanding it, then whatever you have to show will not have convinced any of those specialists to agree with you. So what have you got? And who has it convinced?

I am simply asking what evidence (experiment, observations, research etc.) would convince you that the effect of mutations + natural selection is deleterious? AGAIIN, I think this is a perfectly valid question.
And it has been answered by all the regulars in this forum.

Pretend that you live in a universe where the net effect of mutations + natural selection is deleterious, what would you expect to find in such universe?
In the hypothetical reverse-world such as you describe, we would need some means of countering the deleterious degredation, or else all life would collapse very quickly. Since you imagine that your reverse world is actually the real world, then how would you explain this problem?
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Wed May 28, 2014 1:31 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3485Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

DutchLiam84 wrote:Yeah, but in the meantime he has a track record of ignoring almost everything. 22 pages in and exactly how much has this conversation progressed?


You are correct there, but as AronRa already pointed out:

AronRa wrote:As you can see, they all followed the same pattern of dishonestly ducking-and-dodging every point or query necessary to prove the case. Because what they would rather pretend is more important to them than whatever is really true.


Do you actually expect the creationists to be honest?

The way I look at it, I am doing this for the fence sitters. I am hoping to show them that, while evolution has evidence and facts behind it, creationism does not. In addition, in order for creationists to hold onto their preconceived notions, they must deny all evidence presented to them and equivocate terms to suit their needs. So far, dandan has been a great example of this.

A lesser reason I do this is to keep a record of debunked creationist’s arguments. Now any evolutionary proponent will have this thread as a source to satisfy any skeptic arguing along the lines dandan has been arguing. If the creationist does not accept that evidence than they have exposed they are not a skeptic, but a denialist (a.k.a. a creationist).
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed May 28, 2014 4:54 pm
YIM WWW
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2749Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

For the sake of keeping things on point. And not to be accused of ganging up on them, perhaps a couple of us should refrain from trying to engage them, after all, if you think you are making a point that they are forced to conceed they can just simply ignore as if it never existed and then just say "Well they were to many, I couldn't answer to everyone".
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Wed May 28, 2014 6:59 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

ARON
Yes, and you ignored them. Are you asking me to search out even more articles for you to ignore?


I Did not ignore you article, as I said, you article presupposes that we came from a “simple” ape, and that complexity increased trough mutations and natural selection to account to account for the differences between humans and other apes.

No skeptic will ever be convinced if you present these kind of articles

.
As I have already explained, (and you ignored) those are not presuppositions, and we can prove they are not. In fact, I have already done that, and you ignored that too. Remember I told you, it is not an 'assumption' that humans are apes; it is an established fact. I then showed you how you can simply look it up to confirm this for yourself. I even translated colloquial terms to make it easy for you. Simiiforme = monkey, Catarrhine = 'Old World' monkey, Hominoidea = 'ape', Hominidae = 'great ape'. Now dandan, do you concede the fact that humans are classified as a subset of the taxonomic family of apes?


The reason why I ignored that is because that is completely irrelevant, yes we are apes, so what? That doesn´t prove that “complexity increases”

In the hypothetical reverse-world such as you describe, we would need some means of countering the deleterious degredation, or else all life would collapse very quickly. Since you imagine that your reverse world is actually the real world, then how would you explain this problem?



SO basically what you are saying is that my statement “the net effect of mutations + NS is deleterious” has to be wrong because otherwise life would have gone extent long ago. ¿correct?

How do I explain this problem? I don´t have to explain any problem, I accept the fact that all animals are heading towards extinction, eventually all animals will be gone extint.

From the fossil record we know that most animals that have ever existed are o extint, and from direct observation we know that extinctions are more frequent than speciation.

I don´t have to explain any problem, my model is consistent with this fact.

You are the one who can´t solve this problem, according to your model extinction can´t be more frequent that speciation, because otherwise animals would have gone extinct long ago.
Wed May 28, 2014 7:53 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

DutchLiam84 wrote:Yeah, but in the meantime he has a track record of ignoring almost everything. 22 pages in and exactly how much has this conversation progressed?


Yes I tend to ignore things that I consider irrelevant for the specific point that it´s being commented, but give an example of something (just 1 thing) That I ignored and I will try to respond
Wed May 28, 2014 7:55 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3485Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:
DutchLiam84 wrote:Yeah, but in the meantime he has a track record of ignoring almost everything. 22 pages in and exactly how much has this conversation progressed?


Yes I tend to ignore things that I consider irrelevant for the specific point that it´s being commented, but give an example of something (just 1 thing) That I ignored and I will try to respond


My favorite example is this.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed May 28, 2014 8:04 pm
YIM WWW
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

HE WHO IS NOBODY
Here is the relevant section of the paper you cited that is exactly what you have been asking for.

But you still can´t provide the statistical model yourself… the paper doens´t provide such model.


Once again, your ignorance is on display for everyone to see. Your mistake is acting as if FOXP2 is represented by a single protein variant.


Yes, that is my point, I apologize if I didn´t use the correct words. The gene that codes for “tail” may have a different function in humans.

My hypothesis would be that this gene regulates the length of the spinal cord, if something goes wrong the spinal cord can grow anomaly long. But that in no way proves that our ancestors had tail
Wed May 28, 2014 8:18 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

My favorite example is this.

He basically said that we don’t know the exact ratio of beneficial, neutral and deleterious mutations, I can agree with that, even though we don´t know the exact ratio, we still know that deleterious mutations are more frequent than beneficial one, regardless on how you define “beneficial” and “deleterious”
Wed May 28, 2014 8:22 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 878Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:No skeptic will ever be convinced if you present these kind of articles

You are not a skeptic however. The reason you are not and probably will never be convinced is not because you have a high standard of evidence that the theory of evolution has not met, it is because you have a preferred origin fable for which you have shown no skepticism at all.

dandan wrote:Yes I tend to ignore things that I consider irrelevant for the specific point that it´s being commented, but give an example of something (just 1 thing) That I ignored and I will try to respond

Since at this point you have not responded to things that are completely relevant but certainly too difficult to answer from the creationist "model", I do not expect you to respond to everything as you seem to have been abandoned by fellow creationists who did not even try as hard as you do. However, even I will not expect you to respond to issues raised about the ark and the "kinds" on it, I would still like to know how creationism accounts for deletions leading to adaptation to the environment of the millions of species we see today (or thousands of species if you're allowed to contradict scripture).
"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
Wed May 28, 2014 8:57 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3485Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:HE WHO IS NOBODY
Here is the relevant section of the paper you cited that is exactly what you have been asking for.

But you still can´t provide the statistical model yourself… the paper doens´t provide such model.


:facepalm:

You obviously did not read the paper (something you used as one of your citations). This is getting quite sad.

By the way, Rumraket also provided you with the models.

dandan wrote:
Once again, your ignorance is on display for everyone to see. Your mistake is acting as if FOXP2 is represented by a single protein variant.


Yes, that is my point, I apologize if I didn´t use the correct words. The gene that codes for “tail” may have a different function in humans.

My hypothesis would be that this gene regulates the length of the spinal cord, if something goes wrong the spinal cord can grow anomaly long. But that in no way proves that our ancestors had tail


It is not that you used the wrong word; it is that you obviously did not know that FOXP2 stood for several genes related to lung function and vocalization, thus is nothing like the genes found in the human genome that code for tails. Those genes do not have a different function in humans and I have already given you a citation that shows it codes for creating a tail. Thus, your hypothesis is wrong (and was wrong before you even made it).

dandan wrote:
My favorite example is this.

He basically said that we don’t know the exact ratio of beneficial, neutral and deleterious mutations, I can agree with that, even though we don´t know the exact ratio, we still know that deleterious mutations are more frequent than beneficial one, regardless on how you define “beneficial” and “deleterious”


:facepalm:

You obviously did not read Inferno’s post as well. Furthermore, everyone on this forum has already corrected your bogus definition of deleterious mutation and by the correct definition of deleterious mutation; the conclusion from your argument does not follow.

I also find it hilarious that you think you can counter what Inferno said with just a few words. Dandan, Inferno put a lot of time and effort into that post, the least you could do is show Inferno the respect due and actually address that post.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed May 28, 2014 9:00 pm
YIM WWW
IsotelusBloggerUser avatarPosts: 317Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:I honestly didn´t understand your question.


Then I'll backtrack a little. First: would you agree that individuals in a population are not genetically identical, but instead show diversity and variation in the form of alleles? This is a yes or no question.

Sure humans and chimps have more alleles in common than any of them has with gorillas, so what? If we would have had more alleles in common with gorillas you would have simple draw a different tree putting gorillas and humans in close branches, and chimps in a distant branch. That wouldn´t falsify evolution.

Of course, as humans share more with some species than with others, it simply happened that the chimps have more in common with us than any other animal, if it wasn’t the chimp, some other animal would have to have that designation.


No, that wouldn't necessarily falsify evolution as a whole because the ((H,C)G,O) tree i(and every other tree, for that matter) is supported by other methods and lines of evidence. But I wasn't referring to only Hominidae; I meant across the board; any tree, any model (hence "consistent and significant mismatches").

The fact remains that gorillas are not most closely related to humans, so no, we would not be drawing a simple tree putting gorillas and humans in close branches. If this a rehash of your earlier claim that evolution is too flexible, then this is just about as nonsensical an argument as can be made.

dandan wrote:Yes I tend to ignore things that I consider irrelevant for the specific point that it´s being commented, but give an example of something (just 1 thing) That I ignored and I will try to respond


I will hold you to that:

Everybody claims that there is a statistical method to determine if a given discordance would falsify evolution or not, but no one has ever been capable of showing such model.


Isotelus wrote: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.


I gave you a link the paper that formulated the statistical model used in the papers you cited pages back, it's open access, it explains absolutely everything and provides all the equations, and I outlined how it has been applied in research successfully, and yet no one has been capable of showing a model? Exactly what are you playing at?

Do you have any idea how much work it takes to really, truly understand this topic? I’ve taken the time to read every single one of the papers we discussed on this thread, including the supplementary information from the gorilla paper, which I’m still working on because it’s 79 pages long. It takes time and effort to understand what the scientists are saying, and your repetitiveness and dismissiveness towards everyone's responses suggests that you have not done the work or put in the same effort that people here put into their responses. Having just seen hwin's post above, I'm apparently not the only person who has noticed this.

But why stop at just 1 example?
Isotelus wrote:
For clarification purposes, hwin is talking about atavisms, i.e. the re-expression of usually supressed primitive traits, which is a separate issue to horns and polydactyly as Dragan Glas explained above.

Just a couple of points I wanted to bring up because they deserve mentioning (I won't hijack hwin's discussion). The thing is, all humans have tails as embryos. It's a similar case with bird teeth, as well as the bird embryonic five-fingered hand that I mentioned to creationist. The question here is why an intelligent designer would place functional genes that are never meant to be expressed in the adult and require a whole other set of genes in addition to regulate them. As for FOXP2, it's true that it regulates language and speech in humans, but it does a similar thing for other animals, e.g. vocalization in mice and birds.


This is entirely relevant because you are arguing using statements that are demonstrably false. I think you owe hwin an explanation as to why all human embryos have tails.
Punnet square summer camp: Be there or be square!
Wed May 28, 2014 9:25 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 565Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:I Did not ignore you article, as I said, you article presupposes that we came from a “simple” ape, and that complexity increased trough mutations and natural selection to account to account for the differences between humans and other apes.
I didn't just post one article; I posted several, none of them 'presupposed' anything, yet you ignored them all on a bogus excuse.

No skeptic will ever be convinced if you present these kind of articles
You're no skeptic. If you were, you would recognize two important and very telling clues to reality: (1) Despite your earlier claims, you're unable to provide any peer-reviewed studies to support your case, none that would convince anyone knowledgeable in this field. Because if it really meant what you wish it did, then it would already have convinced a number of experts, and caused them to change their minds. But you know that hasn't happened, and you can't produce anything that could cause that to happen. So you'll blame me for not looking at what you're not showing, but the real problem is, you not having what you say you do. (2) All the data that really exists universally and unanimously always only ever supports the evolutionary position, and/or stands against absolutely all the repugnant fables of the Bible.

As I have already explained, (and you ignored) those are not presuppositions, and we can prove they are not. In fact, I have already done that, and you ignored that too. Remember I told you, it is not an 'assumption' that humans are apes; it is an established fact. I then showed you how you can simply look it up to confirm this for yourself. I even translated colloquial terms to make it easy for you. Simiiforme = monkey, Catarrhine = 'Old World' monkey, Hominoidea = 'ape', Hominidae = 'great ape'. Now dandan, do you concede the fact that humans are classified as a subset of the taxonomic family of apes?
The reason why I ignored that is because that is completely irrelevant, yes we are apes, so what? That doesn´t prove that “complexity increases”
What it proves is that the articles I posted did not 'presuppose' this; it is an established fact. Thus you have no excuse for rejecting them. Recognizing a consensus of evidence consistently compiled over many decades is quite the opposite of 'presupposition'. For example, the fact that we have a Linearly Scaled-up Primate Brain only adds to an already exhaustive collection of verifiable facts which are positively supportive of, and exclusively concordant with evolution. Whereas, you have absolutely nothing whatsoever that is either supportive or indicative of creationism instead, nada, zip. Everything everywhere stands against that compilation of fables -including the very fact that they require faith to believe them.

In the hypothetical reverse-world such as you describe, we would need some means of countering the deleterious degredation, or else all life would collapse very quickly. Since you imagine that your reverse world is actually the real world, then how would you explain this problem?
SO basically what you are saying is that my statement “the net effect of mutations + NS is deleterious” has to be wrong because otherwise life would have gone extent long ago. ¿correct?
Yes, the world you're describing is inconsistent with the world we're actually in, and there is no data to support the world you're pleading for.

How do I explain this problem? I don´t have to explain any problem, I accept the fact that all animals are heading towards extinction, eventually all animals will be gone extint.

From the fossil record we know that most animals that have ever existed are o extint, and from direct observation we know that extinctions are more frequent than speciation.
No sir. Biodiversity requires that speciation be more common than extinction, which it is. That's not always the case obviously, but it must be in the majority of cases, since the net effect is a definite gain.

I don´t have to explain any problem, my model is consistent with this fact.
You don't have a model, and what you believe is inconsistent with reality.

You are the one who can´t solve this problem, according to your model extinction can´t be more frequent that speciation, because otherwise animals would have gone extinct long ago.
I don't have a problem to solve, because we don't live in the reverse world that you're pleading for. Instead, we live in a world where a single common ancestor will beget multiple families, each producing several genera and myriad species. Even with occasional extinction events, (caused by outside forces rather than degenerate genetics) we still have a net gain so that the ancestor of all scorpions (for example) eventually lead to several hundred modern species, regardless how many other species-lines eventually went extinct. So no part of your argument is true at all.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Wed May 28, 2014 10:53 pm
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:
DutchLiam84 wrote:Yeah, but in the meantime he has a track record of ignoring almost everything. 22 pages in and exactly how much has this conversation progressed?


Yes I tend to ignore things that I consider irrelevant for the specific point that it´s being commented, but give an example of something (just 1 thing) That I ignored and I will try to respond

It's literally in my post before this one.
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Thu May 29, 2014 12:13 am
WWW
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3188Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Greetings,

dandan wrote:
AronRa wrote:As I have already explained, (and you ignored) those are not presuppositions, and we can prove they are not. In fact, I have already done that, and you ignored that too. Remember I told you, it is not an 'assumption' that humans are apes; it is an established fact. I then showed you how you can simply look it up to confirm this for yourself. I even translated colloquial terms to make it easy for you. Simiiforme = monkey, Catarrhine = 'Old World' monkey, Hominoidea = 'ape', Hominidae = 'great ape'. Now dandan, do you concede the fact that humans are classified as a subset of the taxonomic family of apes?

The reason why I ignored that is because that is completely irrelevant, yes we are apes, so what? That doesn´t prove that “complexity increases”

If you accept that gorillas, chimps, and humans are all apes, that is a tacit acknowledgement that there must be an order to their relationship.

If there's an order, this must represent a increase/decrease in *something*.

You claim that "deterioration of the genome" means a "decrease" through "loss of information",

However, this supposed "loss" is counter-balanced by a gain in functionality - like the Black Death organism that lost genes but gained the ability to diversify into new environments or - as Aron noted - the mutation that increases the risk of brain tumours in humans is outweighed by the increase in brain size. [Here's a article that also notes the corresponding decrease in muscularity in humans. This is in keeping with the fact that jaw muscles had to have decreased in order for the brain to increase in size.

Both of these represent a increase in functionality - which is a reasonable definition of "complexity".

One has only to look at human evolution genetics to see how we've gained a increase in functionality over our cousins.

dandan wrote:
AronRa wrote:In the hypothetical reverse-world such as you describe, we would need some means of countering the deleterious degredation, or else all life would collapse very quickly. Since you imagine that your reverse world is actually the real world, then how would you explain this problem?

SO basically what you are saying is that my statement “the net effect of mutations + NS is deleterious” has to be wrong because otherwise life would have gone extent long ago. ¿correct?

How do I explain this problem? I don´t have to explain any problem, I accept the fact that all animals are heading towards extinction, eventually all animals will be gone extint.

From the fossil record we know that most animals that have ever existed are o extint, and from direct observation we know that extinctions are more frequent than speciation.

I don´t have to explain any problem, my model is consistent with this fact.

You are the one who can´t solve this problem, according to your model extinction can´t be more frequent that speciation, because otherwise animals would have gone extinct long ago.

You hypothesise a "perfect" creation that falls apart over time - that's a contradiction in terms.

The fact that the environment - any environment - will suit *something* shows that what you're saying can't be correct.

How do you know "all animals will be gone extinct" [sic] ?

And, again, you misuse the word "model" - as has been pointed out, you don't have one.

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
Thu May 29, 2014 12:27 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[
:facepalm:

You obviously did not read the paper (something you used as one of your citations). This is getting quite sad.




It is not that you used the wrong word; it is that you obviously did not know that FOXP2 stood for several genes related to lung function and vocalization, thus is nothing like the genes found in the human genome that code for tails. Those genes do not have a different function in humans and I have already given you a citation that shows it codes for creating a tail. Thus, your hypothesis is wrong (and was wrong before you even made it).



Maybe the gene that codes for tail in monkeys has other functions in other organisms. ¿is that too hard to believe?






You obviously did not read Inferno’s post as well. Furthermore, everyone on this forum has already corrected your bogus definition of deleterious mutation and by the correct definition of deleterious mutation; the conclusion from your argument does not follow.



If most mutations are deleterious and most of them are not removed by NS (As I Showed with scientific articles) then it follows logically that degradation increases as time passes, this is true, regardless on how you what to define delaterious




I also find it hilarious that you think you can counter what Inferno said with just a few words. Dandan, Inferno put a lot of time and effort into that post, the least you could do is show Inferno the respect due and actually address that post.


there is nothing factual in his post that I would disagree on
Thu May 29, 2014 4:13 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

It's literally in my post before this one


I did answer to that, maybe not directly to you, maybe you didnpt like the answer, but I did not ignore it
Thu May 29, 2014 4:14 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

ARONRA
I didn't just post one article; I posted several, none of them 'presupposed' anything, yet you ignored them all on a bogus excuse.


Yes your articles presupposed that we came from simple apes, you may or may not have good reasons to make such a supposition, (that is irrelevant) the thing is that if you can´t presuppose that we came from simple apes, if that is the very thing you are supposed to prove.

You're no skeptic. If you were, you would recognize two important and very telling clues to reality: (1) Despite your earlier claims, you're unable to provide any peer-reviewed studies to support your case


That simply is not true; I provided articles that support my 2 premises
1 most are deleterious
2 most of them are not removed by NS
And by your own admission, the main reason you deny the conclusion, “life degraded as time passes” is because it contradicts your world view.

What it proves is that the articles I posted did not 'presuppose' this; it is an established fact


Even if that were true, that is the very “established fact” that you have to prove. Kust to be clear you don´t have to prove that we are apes, you have to prove that we came from simple apes.

No sir. Biodiversity requires that speciation be more common than extinction, which it is. That's not always the case obviously, but it must be in the majority of cases, since the net effect is a definite gain.



Except for the fact that multiple independent lines of evidence suggest the exact opposite.

From direct observation, we know that extinction is hundreds of times more frequent than speciation, thousands of animals have gone extent in recent history, and only a few dozens of speciation events have been reported.

Even according to your own interpretation of the fossil record, that majority of animals are evolutionary dead ends* this is true even if we assume that every single alleged transitional fossil is a direct ancestor.

*Evolutionary dead end: animals that whet extinct without evolving in to something else, for example the T-REX simply died, he didn´t evolved in to something else.

Genetic evidence demonstrates that genetic load increases from generation to generation (this being the mayor reason for extinction in stable enviroments)

But all these lines of evidence most be wrong, because they will all be inconsistent with evolution.
Thu May 29, 2014 4:35 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 22 of 49
 [ 977 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Collecemall and 5 guests