Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[PeteAtoms]

mutations do not cause ape to man.

Maybe not in a test tube. But you are thinking about it as if it were happening removed from nature in a closed environment somewhere. Mutations alone can't account for evolution, but in the context of surviving an arguably hostile environment, sometimes a few individuals get genetically lucky and procreate like there's no tomorrow

It's a dog eat dog world, or haven't you heard?

 

[Brian Shanahan]

this is from a previous post i had

So the part you're quoting just proves that in the environment that sickle cell anemia developed it was a beneficial mutation.
1) You know that natural selection based on envirnment is the cornerstone of Darwin's theory?
2) So how does this prove your point that mutations are not beneficial?
3) How does showing a non-beneficial mutation either disprove evolution or show evidence for creationism?

 

[El_Machinae]

You mentioned 'destroy information'. Keep in mind that this is a mainly YEC term, and so it's rather hard to figure out.

Can you explain how a gene duplication event is 'information loss'?

 

[negZero]

genetic disorders are caused by mutations

Now list 15 negative ones that fit my criteria

i listed them in my posting before.

Not any that fits the criteria

vestigial organs opinionated definition.

No it isn't, it is set definition that doctors across the global use its basically set in stone.

does that mean that my pinky is a vestigial organ.

Lack of pinky will weaken your grip, so no it isn't a vestigial organ.

just because something has a small function does not mean it evolved over millions of years.

Where talking about things that lose there function like the Cecum

my post was not about vestigial organs but how mutations(copying errors) do not fit the theory of evolution. mutations do not cause ape to man.

I believe that you no longer understand your own argument.

 

[sophie]

this is from a previous post i had

You obviously do not understand the argument. As the findings in the article I posted suggest, distributions of people with SCA suggesting that the mutation is endemic to low-lying areas where malaria is more common, and virtually nonexistent in highland areas where mosquitoes are less common displays natural selection almost flawlessly. In regions where the debilitations caused by SCA are less harmful than those caused by malaria, people who survive malaria thanks to the better resistances offered by SCA will survive to pass their genes on, whereas those who don't die of malaria. In highland regions, where malaria is less common, those with SCA are less likely to survive to pass on the genes (in fact SCA may be even more harmful in higher altitudes considering SCA affects the blood cells' ability to transport oxygen, which is sparser in higher altitudes).

The point is, there is no such thing as an "objectively good" mutation. The quality of a mutation is dependent entirely on the local geography and needs of that specific population. Where a mutation may be very beneficial in one region, it may be highly debilitating in another. The fact that mutations are dependent on location is an extremely important part of Darwinian evolution, as if mutations could be termed objectively good, then there would only be one species on the planet, and all the individuals of the species would be completely identical.

 

[magicfan101]

Now list 15 negative ones that fit my criteria


Not any that fits the criteria
if i remember correctly your criteria was list 15 harmful mutations. which i did.


No it isn't, it is set definition that doctors across the global use its basically set in stone.
how do you know something has less of a function than before. when we never examined a supposed ape "like" ancestor"


I believe that you no longer understand your own argument.

mutations fit the YEC model of death and decay after Adam's sin.
the theory of evolution needs "lots" of good mutations but they are neutral or bad

 

[sophie]

mutations fit the YEC model of death and decay after Adam's sin.
the theory of evolution needs "lots" of good mutations but they are neutral or bad

No it doesn't, because Evolution works under the (rightly supposed) assumption that the Earth is billions of years old, and even 1% "good mutations" in a population of billions is a very high number indeed. In other words, anything is possible given enough time.

 

[magicfan101]

No it doesn't, because Evolution works under the (rightly supposed) assumption that the Earth is billions of years old, and even 1% "good mutations" in a population of billions is a very high number indeed. In other words, anything is possible given enough time.

1% of good mutations followed by 99% bad mutations. mutations in germ cells always get passed on to the offspring. there is no way to remove a bad mutation if it becomes a recessive gene. the vast majority of mutations are recessive.(quoted from the scientists in my post) natural selection can not get rid of them. you have to take the good with the bad ,no way around it. a good mutation can be theoretically but it will be overwhelmed with bad mutations.

 

[sophie]

1% of good mutations followed by 99% bad mutations. mutations in germ cells always get passed on to the offspring. there is no way to remove a bad mutation if it becomes a recessive gene. the vast majority of mutations are recessive.(quoted from the scientists in my post) natural selection can not get rid of them. you have to take the good with the bad ,no way around it. a good mutation can be theoretically but it will be overwhelmed with bad mutations.

You aren't making any sense, maite.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

mutations fit the YEC model of death and decay after Adam's sin.
the theory of evolution needs "lots" of good mutations but they are neutral or bad

I'm sorry but WTH? You seriously are just spouting words at random now. TEC posits that the world now is exactly as it was when god created. Mutations would disprove that.

TOE does not need good mutations mutations, it just needs mutations. The process of natural selection will weed out the useless mutations, leaving only specie which are better fitted for survival within the environment they exist.

See the two theories actually want the opposite of what you are positing. I am now certain that you know evolution is right and creationism a fantasy, but you are too pig-headed to admit it, and all you're doing is going around in increasingly smaller spirals, saying "Creation is real, Creation is real, Creation is real."

 

[magicfan101]

I'm sorry but WTH? You seriously are just spouting words at random now. TEC posits that the world now is exactly as it was when god created. Mutations would disprove that.

straw man argument. no YECs would ever say that. please visits any website by YECS and that statement will be disproved.

TOE does not need good mutations mutations, it just needs mutations. The process of natural selection will weed out the useless mutations, leaving only specie which are better fitted for survival within the environment they exist.

mutations are mistakes in dna replication. DNA has a repair mechanism that fixes mutations. plz read my previous post in the spoiler.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

straw man argument. no YECs would ever say that. please visits any website by YECS and that statement will be disproved.



mutations are mistakes in dna replication. DNA has a repair mechanism that fixes mutations. plz read my previous post in the spoiler.


natural selection can not

Well on your first part if YECcers are saying mutations are acceptable, they are not following scripture. Or did god make an imperfect world?

In response to your second part this is what your post "in the spoiler" says: "a mutation is a change in the base sequence of the DNA", which is what we've been arguing all along. Mutations are changes in DNA which lead to changes in the organism, if they lead to a fitter organism, that organism breeds changes are kept and the species changes if not the orgainism dies and the mutation dies with it. It is that simple! Everything else is you bolding words out of context to make it look like you're arguement is being supported. This is exactly like you deliberately misquoting Steven Jay Gould to make him look like a creationist in order to "win" your arguement. Or is your arguement based on you disagreeing with us by agreeing with everything we say?

I would like to take a moment to say personally that you are an intellectually bankrupt cowardly liar who will do nothing no matter how shameful or immoral to try and win this arguement even when you know that it is wrong. If I get infracted for this then so be it, but it needed to be said and you needed to hear it.

Moderator Action: If you need to resort to insults, I'd rather you just stop posting. Such comments do nothing to further any discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[carlosMM]

mutations are mistakes in dna replication. DNA has a repair mechanism that fixes mutations. plz read my previous post in the spoiler.

somehow, aside from an inability to type proper English words, you also seem unable to wrap your kind around the simplest problems:

most mutations are bad or neutral
cells have a repair mechanism

logical - if something bad happens its a good idea to be able to fix it.

the repair mechanism is not perfect, it misses the occasional mutation. If it is bad, the organism runs a much lower chance of procreating, the mutation dies out.

Some mutations, very few, are beneficial.
if they get repaired, they die out. If not (i.e., the repair mechanism doesn't manage to fix them) they persist. And give an advantage that leads the the organism having more success precreating. Thus, the mutation spreads in the gene pool.

if you collect a bunch of mutations over a few to a few hundred thousand generations the chance that the last organism in the line would not be able to mate with and have fertile offsprings with the original ancestor are pretty high. That's called speciation.

THAT SIMPLE!

 

[carlosMM]

I would like to take a moment to say personally that you are an intellectually bankrupt cowardly liar who will do nothing no matter how shameful or immoral to try and win this arguement even when you know that it is wrong. If I get infracted for this then so be it, but it needed to be said and you needed to hear it.

I think you are wrong, he simply doesn't understand a word of what he copies and pastes, and has never thought his own posts through.

 

[sophie]

You know who musicfan101 reminds me of? This guy.


Link to video.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I think you are wrong, he simply doesn't understand a word of what he copies and pastes, and has never thought his own posts through.

Well twice now I've caught him misquoting the works and words of others in order to try and bolster his own side, so liar is proven.
He's often tried to wave away the fact that his sources disprove his arguements, intellectually bankrupt in my books.
He continually refuses to either properly respond to the challenges of others or answer the challenge of the thread title, which i find cowardly.

If he does not like my description well he'll either have to start acting like a mature human being or he can drop this whole thing and go back to his own.

 

[magicfan101]

Well on your first part if YECcers are saying mutations are acceptable, they are not following scripture. Or did god make an imperfect world?

the world was perfect but Adams sin brought death and decay into the world.

I would like to take a moment to say personally that you are an intellectually bankrupt cowardly liar who will do nothing no matter how shameful or immoral to try and win this arguement even when you know that it is wrong. If I get infracted for this then so be it, but it needed to be said and you needed to hear it.

mutations are mistakes in dna replication thet change the original sequence in the genome. you cant repair something that's not broke.

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair

Mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication
the one in bold is the only one that matters since its the only errors that gets passed off to the offspring

 

[carlosMM]

Well twice now I've caught him misquoting the works and words of others in order to try and bolster his own side, so liar is proven.

Where I come from the word "lie" implies intent. I woulN't give him so much creatid. I rather think he just goes quote-mining for things vaguely seeming to support his positioin because he does not understand the whole texts.

He's often tried to wave away the fact that his sources disprove his arguements, intellectually bankrupt in my books.

again, because he does not understand.

He continually refuses to either properly respond to the challenges of others or answer the challenge of the thread title, which i find cowardly.

He ignores challenges because he does not know how to answer them. Give a poor, uneducated, home-schooled brainwashed kid a break: he can't do any better. We should go slow, be nice, and he may see that there's more than c&p to arguing.

If he does not like my description well he'll either have to start acting like a mature human being or he can drop this whole thing and go back to his own.

Isn't. he's a kid. Give him a break.

 

[carlosMM]

mutations are mistakes in dna replication thet change the original sequence in the genome. you cant repair something that's not broke.

In fact, you can. If you erroneously think it is broken. And you may indeed end up with a better or worse state, not just the "original" state.
"repair" in cell DNA just means "making sure that left matches right in the base pair". If both are screwed, but match, the repair won't happen. If they are not properly matched, but the repair mechanism can't make a better match, they stay. If they do not match, and a whole sequence of pairs doesn't match, the repair will not happen because the strands will drift apart.

"repair" does not mean that there is a master plan, and things will get altered until they match it.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Where I come from the word "lie" implies intent. I woulN't give him so much creatid. I rather think he just goes quote-mining for things vaguely seeming to support his positioin because he does not understand the whole texts.
again, because he does not understand.
He ignores challenges because he does not know how to answer them. Give a poor, uneducated, home-schooled brainwashed kid a break: he can't do any better. We should go slow, be nice, and he may see that there's more than c&p to arguing.


Isn't. he's a kid. Give him a break.

Well I fully ascribe intent to his liening, I published proof of his misquoting almost immediately after he posted the misqoute, and do you know what it took over 3 pages and a stern rebuke from a mod to get him to acknowledge it. No if he mistakenly used the misquote from elsewhere, he'd have looked at my post, checked it out and apologised there and then. It's what any normal person does. I do actually think he means to misquote in the full knowledge that the science doesn't support his actions. Why else does he keep doing the same thing over and over and over until he's blue in the face, again someone mistaken would have stopped it long ago.

The time for being nice to him passed for me a long time ago, when he started throwing my well reasoned and decently researched arguements back in my face as strawmen, simply because they showed him to be exactly what I have described him to be. He makes no effort to respond to posts where it is shown that a) his "evidence" disproves him, b) respond to counter points which show flaws in his arguements. And finally he ignores every single statement which proves that not alone is he deliberately twisting the facts and statements of others but also that his own arguements contain no logical constistencies also. There is no persuading him, as the only way to open his mind is through the use of a pick-axe (I'm not advocating violence, just using a graphic analogy to describe your lack of ability to assimilate new knowledge magicfan).
He joined the site simply to troll this single thread (check his start date, this thread's start date and where the majority of his posts are), so my guess is that he is a hard core YECcer who surfs the internet simply to show his YEC cojones.

And finally on the thought that he is a kid, I'd like to see incontrovertible proof of that first.