Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm still upset that about 90% of my posts were flat out ignored or skipped over, and almost none of my questions or points were responded to.

I was thinking about cobbling together all the things that were glossed over, but I don't expect any of them will get a response. If it wasn't responded to the first time, and I took the time to write it then, I don't think it will be responded to if I take the time to re-post it.

So, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that I am being ignored because of intellectual dishonesty and/or cowardice on the part of the opposing advocates. Don't know what else to call it, when I respond to each point made and my points get ignored and my questions get ignored.
 
Spoiler :
2. When you say "impossible because" you leave out all alternative theories, and that is bad science.

"Life without ATP synthase is impossible because it is the energy for life."

What if life had other kinds of energy at one point? What if it can be proven that ATP can be created naturally through an abiogenesis process?

  • How can you declare something impossible without exploring other alternatives?

This is a point that needs answering, because it's an important one.

the first evidence is that change (mutations) in the genome has limits, which supports a creationist view.
  • You've shown NO evidence of that.

WHERE are you pulling these quotes from?

  • Where are the limits of genome mutation? Where? Where where where where where?

What does this link have to do with evolution?

If anything, it has to do with the Adam and Eve nonsense.

You are not still thinking that new species arise from two mutants, do you?

I already responded to this fallacy. Why are you REPEATING it when I've already corrected you?

Are you even reading my posts?

What does inbreeding have to do with evolution?

Do YEC people understand that the theory of evolution DOES NOT imply that new species are created by "a pair of mutants"?

Answer me, YES or NO?


Summarize what he said first. I grow weary of having to sift through religious garbage to get to the point, which I often cannot find at all, which is often the case with your posts.

Still waiting on a summary.

  • You haven't falsified a darn thing.

Still waiting to hear exactly what has been proven false.

How is this in any way proof that good mutations don't exist?

  • Prove that "ALL SUCH MUTATIONS ARE INFORMATION-LOSING."

It seems more like information-changing or information-adding to me.

  • What specific mechanism was that?

  • How does that disprove that random mutations and natural selection is a mechanism of evolution?

Hint: it does not.

Who is saying that mutations happen in terms of "frog to prince"?

Any answers to any of these???


No, I only responded to 3 out of 4 of your assertions which are all proven false in a single stroke of a simple GOOGLE search.

  • If I were able to show ATP forming spontaneously from other, smaller molecules, would you finally admit you were wrong?

Well? Is there anything that can result in an admission of wrongitude from you, Trev?

your argument it is give it a billion years and anything can happen. im sorry but mutations dont work that way

Oh that's easy: YES THEY DO.
  • Now, you have to demonstrate WHY they don't work that way.

I grow weary of pointing this out, too.


"I'm sorry that you're wrong" = NOT A REBUTTAL.

WHERE.... IS..... THE.... WHY?

1. You provided ZERO examples of the limits of mutation.

Demonstrate the limits of mutation now, please. Don't assert something and act like your assertion makes it factual.

2. Do you understand the difference between "some" and "all"?

  • You do realize you were making a some/all fallacy, right?

If some mutations are not dangerous, but some are dangerous, then exposing oneself to levels of radiation which can cause harmful "and sometimes helpful" mutations, but the helpful ones won't matter because you're dead, that's NOT the same thing as a single random mutation over the course of a generation.

A bad mutation will cause that specimen not to thrive. But not all mutations are bad. The vast, vast minority of them are. If you introduce a million mutations in a specimen, it might die, yes, because some of those might be bad. If you introduce one or two mutations, it will probably be just fine. The good mutations survive. The bad mutations don't thrive.

  • Is this really that hard a concept?

If it is not a hard concept, why are you deliberately misrepresenting it?

  • What makes a mutation bad in the first place?

Do you know? Or are all mutations "bad" in your mind?


Don't know why I did it, but here it is, for reference.

I want responses from Trev and Magicfan, respectively, to each of these points they both blatantly ignored.
Each point is in bold purple, so you can't miss it.
 
No one is saying they always must develop the resistance as a response to the threat.
the point is that the Resistance did not evolve through "mutations"


  • Prove that "ALL SUCH MUTATIONS ARE INFORMATION-LOSING."

the hiv Resistance was a good example both receptors had a original function to the cell. but through a mutation the cell lost the ability to express those receptors

The HIV virus has to attach to molecules that are expressed on the surface of the T-cells. One of these molecules is called CD4 (or CD4 receptor); another is C-C chemokine receptor 5, known variously as CCR5, CCCKR5 and CKR5. Some people carry a mutant allele of the CCR5 gene that results in lack of expression of this protein on the surface of T-cell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5e

It seems more like information-changing or information-adding to me.
interesting you use the word information . information implies some sort of order.


Who is saying that mutations happen in terms of "frog to prince"?

I'm saying mutations happen in terms of "frog with gene that produces a protein that would be good against a certain type of infection" versus "frog without that gene", over time, causing that type of gene to become dominant.
evolutions needs mutations to work. if the good mutations are a loss of functionality how can a frog survive millions of years of mutations

Or "giraffe with gene for slightly longer neck is able to reach higher, and thus reach a food source more easily than their counterparts".
i already proved this type of giraffe evolution wrong.
the accepted view is it happened "simultaneously".
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB325.html
 
i already proved this type of giraffe evolution wrong.
the accepted view is it happened "simultaneously".
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB325.html

I believe you were subsequently disproven; that you flaunter this 'accepted view' crap is beyond me seeing as so many have argued against it and made far better arguements against then you have for it.

You continue to quote biased sources and render your point even less valuable... The evidence is lain before you, but your eyes remain shut tight and you continue to butt your head against a brick wall.

Absolutely pathetic.
 
the point is that the Resistance did not evolve through "mutations"

Not in that instance, no.

That does not disprove all instances.

This is that same some/all problem you keep having. One example does not prove a negative for all examples.

interesting you use the word information . information implies some sort of order.

It's your word. Pick on it at your own risk.

evolutions needs mutations to work. if the good mutations are a loss of functionality how can a frog survive millions of years of mutations

You've yet to prove that all good mutations are a loss of functionality.

Same some/all problem you always, always have.


i already proved this type of giraffe evolution wrong.
the accepted view is it happened "simultaneously".
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB325.html

What happened simultaneously?

Your link:

1. Darwin answered this claim in 1868 (206). The claim assumes that "gradually" must mean "one at a time." Not so. The different features could have (and almost certainly would have) evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth.


So, the evolution of longer necks simultaneously allowed for other features to exist at the same time.

How does this disprove giraffe neck evolution? It does not. In fact this link has nothing to do with disproving giraffe neck evolution.


When I talk to you I wonder how your reasoning can be so disconnected from what I said, and how it can be so disconnected from basic logic.

Why do you keep making the same fallacies over and over again?



You have also failed to respond to more of my old points from that same post. Go back and respond to them please.
 
I believe you were subsequently disproven; that you flaunter this 'accepted view' crap is beyond me seeing as so many have argued against it and made far better arguements against then you have for it.

You continue to quote biased sources and render your point even less valuable... The evidence is lain before you, but your eyes remain shut tight and you continue to butt your head against a brick wall.

Absolutely pathetic.

??????
so you agree that talkorigions is biased. i think you missed my point.
the accepted view among evolutionist is that the giraffe evolved multiple organs and body structures "simultaneously" so it could drink water.
 
It does not. Please google 'directional selection'. All you need is ordinary variance within a population.

I would argue that the variance is because of random mutation.

That's why we are not all alike. We're not clones.

You're on my side of this issue, can you explain the difference to me?

What's the difference between ordinary variance and random mutation?

??????
so you agree that talkorigions is biased. i think you missed my point.
the accepted view among evolutionist is that the giraffe evolved multiple organs and body structures "simultaneously" so it could drink water.

Correction: So it could continue drinking water.

And those who had not progressed to that point, biologically, who had the appropriate structures in place to continue safe growth, were selected out.

It did not need to suddenly evolve a whole bunch of things and have its neck shoot out 5 feet long, this was a gradual process. Earlier states of evolution allowed for a less-mutated creature to continue to live out its life just fine. But those with the longer neck adaptation thrived and were selected for.

This still doesn't prove that mutations are harmful. In fact, it proves the opposite.
 
I would argue that the variance is because of random mutation.

That's why we are not all alike. We're not clones.

You're on my side of this issue, can you explain the difference to me?

What's the difference between ordinary variance and random mutation?

I'll post properly tomorrow when I go and find some examples & links. Things like bacteria being resistance to anti-biotics, or beak size on birds, or melanin levels on humans would be examples of normal variance, with cumulative selection resulting in obvious differences, and even speciation. Melanin levels in humans are an obvious difference without being any sort of speciation, resistant strains of bacteria are an obvious difference, and I have no idea if they'd be examples of speciation or not, the finches Darwin observed are actual examples of speciation.

Need to read up on nylon bugs, but I suspect that's an example of an actual mutation. I know there was an experiment done on maybe a dozen colonies of something, and some of the colonies showed a gradual improvement in whatever they were measuring, one showed a huge jump in a few generations, and the conclusion was it was down to two separate mutations. They kept samples of each colony at various stages, which meant they could repeat things. I know that's really really vague & not useful, but I will find the experiment I'm talking about as soon as I remember which book it was in and where in my bookcase it's hiding.

I guess it probably depends on how you define mutation, too. But to me, I wouldn't call falling somewhere within the normal population range on a particular characteristic as being mutated, I'd just call that ordinary variance. And ordinary variance + cumulative selection is more than enough to result in speciation if conditions change, if a population splits, etc. Disruptive selection leading to sympatric speciation is another type, stabilising selection the sort of thing that I'm sure is on a creationist website somewhere as an example of how all mutations/changes must be negative, even though it forgets the fact that the external conditions can change.

To pick another random example that seems to make sense to me, look at giraffes & snakes. Despite the size, giraffe necks still have 7 vertebrae, same as most (all?) other mammals. That's because the length has gradually increased as selection pressures were applied to ordinary variance in neck length. But various snakes have various numbers of vertebrae. I have no idea if say a taipan population has a variance in number of vertebrae, or only in actual snake length. Might have to see what I can find on that. But I would guess that a duplication error, or a mutation in whatever controlled number of vertebrae, would help result in different length snakes. I know there's examples of things being duplicated and then the duplicate ending up doing some other function, but again I can't think of anything off the top of my head and would need to go and search for them. Just dug out a Bio textbook, it gives globins (like myoglobin & haemoglobin) as an example thought to be a result of duplication, talks about fruit flies for transposition mutations, and says 'Even the wrinkled seed trait of peas studied by Gregor Mendel is now known to be the result of a mutation caused by insertion of a transposable element into the gene coding for a starch branching enzyme'.

Back later once I dig out that experiment I was talking about. I can remember being fascinated by it when I first read about it.
 
Well, they're harmful for those that can't evolve... which might explain the entire creationist phenomena :mischief:
 
I would argue that the variance is because of random mutation.

That's why we are not all alike. We're not clones.

You're on my side of this issue, can you explain the difference to me?

What's the difference between ordinary variance and random mutation?

ATPG all Sanabas is saying is that you need something that can change within an organism for evolution to occour. Mutations at the gene level of DNA are simply one way of doing this. For example another vector for the mutability of the species is through prions. Prions fold proteins created by DNA orders within a cell into their correct shape, if those prions are diverted from their job then the organism can be changed significantly. I'm looking for a specific so I'll get back to you.

Edit: Found it. I was looking for a popular science book The Science of the Discworld. Pratchett, Stewart & Cohen. a very good read on popular scienc (if a bit out of date now, in print since 1999). They mentioned the Prion HSP90 (pp. 209-210), which when unstressed folds proteins one way but when stressed folds them another. The stress is caused by extremes of heat (not sure how much). I would recommend you read this book (and it's two sequels The Globe and Darwin's Watch), especially if you also like humourous fantasy.
 
Spoiler :
I'll post properly tomorrow when I go and find some examples & links. Things like bacteria being resistance to anti-biotics, or beak size on birds, or melanin levels on humans would be examples of normal variance, with cumulative selection resulting in obvious differences, and even speciation. Melanin levels in humans are an obvious difference without being any sort of speciation, resistant strains of bacteria are an obvious difference, and I have no idea if they'd be examples of speciation or not, the finches Darwin observed are actual examples of speciation.

Need to read up on nylon bugs, but I suspect that's an example of an actual mutation. I know there was an experiment done on maybe a dozen colonies of something, and some of the colonies showed a gradual improvement in whatever they were measuring, one showed a huge jump in a few generations, and the conclusion was it was down to two separate mutations. They kept samples of each colony at various stages, which meant they could repeat things. I know that's really really vague & not useful, but I will find the experiment I'm talking about as soon as I remember which book it was in and where in my bookcase it's hiding.

I guess it probably depends on how you define mutation, too. But to me, I wouldn't call falling somewhere within the normal population range on a particular characteristic as being mutated, I'd just call that ordinary variance. And ordinary variance + cumulative selection is more than enough to result in speciation if conditions change, if a population splits, etc. Disruptive selection leading to sympatric speciation is another type, stabilising selection the sort of thing that I'm sure is on a creationist website somewhere as an example of how all mutations/changes must be negative, even though it forgets the fact that the external conditions can change.

To pick another random example that seems to make sense to me, look at giraffes & snakes. Despite the size, giraffe necks still have 7 vertebrae, same as most (all?) other mammals. That's because the length has gradually increased as selection pressures were applied to ordinary variance in neck length. But various snakes have various numbers of vertebrae. I have no idea if say a taipan population has a variance in number of vertebrae, or only in actual snake length. Might have to see what I can find on that. But I would guess that a duplication error, or a mutation in whatever controlled number of vertebrae, would help result in different length snakes. I know there's examples of things being duplicated and then the duplicate ending up doing some other function, but again I can't think of anything off the top of my head and would need to go and search for them. Just dug out a Bio textbook, it gives globins (like myoglobin & haemoglobin) as an example thought to be a result of duplication, talks about fruit flies for transposition mutations, and says 'Even the wrinkled seed trait of peas studied by Gregor Mendel is now known to be the result of a mutation caused by insertion of a transposable element into the gene coding for a starch branching enzyme'.

Back later once I dig out that experiment I was talking about. I can remember being fascinated by it when I first read about it.

I think you spent more time and effort discussing how you were going to answer my question than all the YEC posters combined have spent answering my questions.

And for that, I think you.

To me, I question where "normal variance" (variance implies a difference, not sameness or normality) comes from. In my opinion all variance is a result of a mutation somewhere down the line.

The gene that made melanin express itself less so we have lighter skin is a trait that's a variance from what it had been prior, a mutation that happened and was then selected for. But even still, our skin colors are not exactly the same, and I do not believe that it only takes a single mutation to turn "african"-style skin into "northern european"-style skin. I think there are gradual changes there.

And so those gradual changes are also expressed, and mixed together, and that's why we have variance in our skin color, just as an example, but it's all related to changes in our genetic code or "mutations", somewhere down the line.

Am I mistaken on how this works? Isn't "variance" always a direct result of mutation in the first place?
 
Skin colour is also affected by the level of Vitamin D available. I'm not sure about the workings but it does have an affect, I believe skin lightening is due to the need to absorb larger amounts of Vit D from lesser levels of sunlight at higher (lower) latitudes. Now I'm not a biologist so I could be wrong and I'm too tired to check it out fully.
 
Skin colour is also affected by the level of Vitamin D available. I'm not sure about the workings but it does have an affect, I believe skin lightening is due to the need to absorb larger amounts of Vit D from lesser levels of sunlight at higher (lower) latitudes. Now I'm not a biologist so I could be wrong and I'm too tired to check it out fully.

Well I understand things like I can get a tan, and my skin color can be slightly altered. But if left alone it returns to a natural state, whereas with a dark-skinned person, their skin is dark whether it's sunny or rainy, hot or cold, indoors all the time or outdoors.

There is obviously a pure, basic, genetic component here and that's what I am discussing, not tanning or vitamin deficiency necessarily.

I'm saying that variance, and any other, like blue eyes or blonde hair or curly hair or straight, that's all due to genetic variance, and I'm suggesting all genetic variance is due to mutation, otherwise we would all have the same hair color, eye color, blood type, you name it.

If this is wrong I'd love to see what the alternative is, I am genuinely curious. I don't know what the answer would be.
 
To me, I question where "normal variance" (variance implies a difference, not sameness or normality) comes from. In my opinion all variance is a result of a mutation somewhere down the line.

Quite possibly, yeah. Might be more of a philosophical/definition argument than a practical one though. And the creationist argument seems to be more that for population A to evolve into population B, it requires population A to have a new mutation arise, and for that mutation to be beneficial. Which is clearly not the case, all it needs is for population A to not be identical. The other argument is that if population A changes into population B, that's because population B was contained within population A, and information has been stripped away from A, until we were left with B. That's the gist of their rubbish about kinds.

Which does remind me of a question I've asked a couple of times, but never had answered: As a creationist biologist, how do I work out which kind an animal is from? Easy enough to say for spiders, or snakes, but which kind did koalas come from? Bear kind? Or something else?

The gene that made melanin express itself less so we have lighter skin is a trait that's a variance from what it had been prior, a mutation that happened and was then selected for. But even still, our skin colors are not exactly the same, and I do not believe that it only takes a single mutation to turn "african"-style skin into "northern european"-style skin. I think there are gradual changes there.

Yeah, of course. That's the point. Our skin colours aren't exactly the same. Regardless of how that originally occured, we can now have a population of people in which there's a slight variance in melanin levels. Say 20-50 on the just made up melanin scale. So if you're somewhere where there's some selection pressure, where having more or less melanin means it's easier to survive and have kids that survive to breeding age themselves, then that 20-50 range is going to change in successive generations. Say those in the 20-30 range are less likely to have kids, those in the 40-50 range are more likely. And in a separate population, that's reversed. And that each kid will have a melanin level the same as one parent, + or - 5. Easy to see that if you run it for enough generations, you could end up with one population having a 0-25 melanin range, and the other having 70-100, and both of them stable because going below zero is impossible, and going above 100 is possible, but causes other problems, like using too much energy to produce. Two obviously different populations, all without needing any mutations from the original population, just a gradual slide along a scale that already existed. The disruptive selection & sympatric speciation I mentioned above is basically the same idea, but without the original populations being physically separate.

And so those gradual changes are also expressed, and mixed together, and that's why we have variance in our skin color, just as an example, but it's all related to changes in our genetic code or "mutations", somewhere down the line.

Am I mistaken on how this works? Isn't "variance" always a direct result of mutation in the first place?

Again, I think it's more an issue with definition than anything else. I don't think there's anything factually wrong with what you're saying, but I do think it helps contribute to misunderstandings. I honestly don't know if you could say that at some point, long before we were human, melanin level was identical, but then slight mutations led to there being variance. Same with other qualities. I suspect that sort of thing would go right back to the first examples of meiosis & sexual reproduction. But whether it's a case of various mutations along the way, or simply a case of variation being a direct consequence of getting genetic material from two parents, and that actually discovering the trick of sexual reproduction is all the mutation that was required, I don't know. Either way it does require some sort of mutation somewhere in the population's ancestry.

Anyway, found the experiment I was thinking of, it's being run by Richard Lenski: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/ is the project website, I just found that and haven't actually looked at it yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment is the wiki page on it, and nowhere near as interesting as the book I read. I suspect it was something by Richard Dawkins, I'll search the bookcase and see what I can find.
 
If this is wrong I'd love to see what the alternative is, I am genuinely curious. I don't know what the answer would be.

Could it be epigenetics? Basically, environment plays a role on gene expression. I read a study a few years back where how a (preadolescent) rat was treated would change its appearance dramatically: fur color, size, etc. Apparently, there is quite a bit of evidence of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. How could that happen unless the environment changed the genome without mutation? (Disclaimer: I am not a biologist.)

It makes you want to treat children a little kinder.
 
How could that happen unless the environment changed the genome without mutation? (Disclaimer: I am not a biologist.)

A "change in genetic code" is essentially the definition of the word mutation.

Environment can, however, influence the phenotype (i.e. the expression of a trait) of an organism without changing the genetic code, and it almost always does as virtually nothing is 100% inheritable.

edit: I suppose this is a matter of semantics, though.
 
A "change in genetic code" is essentially the definition of the word mutation.

Environment can, however, influence the phenotype (i.e. the expression of a trait) of an organism without changing the genetic code, and it almost always does as virtually nothing is 100% inheritable.

Thanks for that. I guess I figured a mutation was limited to a change in genetic code during the process of reproduction.
 
i already proved this type of giraffe evolution wrong.
the accepted view is it happened "both simultaneously and gradually".
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB325.html
Hey, this is from our discussion at page 14 when you were very quick to drop the subject.

Anyway, since you don't seem to mind leaving out a key word in your description of what evolutionist accept, I don't think you'd mind if I alter your quote to represent what they actually accept.

From the article
"both simultaneously and gradually"

And I'll echo Pizzaguy's question:
How does this disprove giraffe neck evolution? It does not. In fact this link has nothing to do with disproving giraffe neck evolution.

Now, do we have to wait another 15 pages before you throw this out again, or will you respond right away for a change?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom