Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5217 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 391 of 530 (530112)
10-12-2009 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by Kaichos Man
10-12-2009 8:13 AM


Re: Results of study
And why were these dragons always large, dangerous reptilian creatures, do you think?
Hmm. Large, dangerous reptiles...that sounds familiar...
Wrong. The Chinese dragon is wise, strong, and benevolent. It is not a force for destruction. For the Chinese, the dragon is at the top and the characteristics of a dragon are what people aspire to attain. The dragon is associated with the yang (male) while the Chinese Phoenix is associated with the yin (female).
Also, the Chinese dragon is generally depicted without wings.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts..." - Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-12-2009 8:13 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 392 of 530 (530114)
10-12-2009 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by Percy
10-12-2009 9:50 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
quote:
Beneficial mutations may be rare when compared to deleterious mutations, but they occur at a more than sufficient rate. Try this hypothetical example for the ancestor humans 10 million years ago. Assume a constant population size of one million, 10 random mutations per generation, and a generation time of 20 years. Further assume that only one out of a million mutations are beneficial. Plugging in the numbers you'll find that during that period of 10 million years there would have occurred 5 million beneficial mutations.
You may be aware, Percy, of recent research that shows that about 150 mutations occur per generation in human - your figure of 20 is very conservative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Percy, posted 10-12-2009 9:50 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Blue Jay, posted 10-12-2009 11:35 AM Peepul has not replied
 Message 401 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-13-2009 6:53 AM Peepul has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 393 of 530 (530127)
10-12-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Peepul
10-12-2009 10:35 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
Hi, Peepul.
Peepul writes:
You may be aware, Percy, of recent research that shows that about 150 mutations occur per generation in human - your figure of 20 is very conservative.
Can you supply some sources for this? I've been looking for this information. Thanks.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Peepul, posted 10-12-2009 10:35 AM Peepul has not replied

  
SammyJean
Member (Idle past 4074 days)
Posts: 87
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 03-28-2009


Message 394 of 530 (530175)
10-12-2009 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by bluescat48
10-09-2009 11:23 PM


Re: Coal Mine Artifacts
To me the second one looks more like a Rhino than a triceritops.
I think it looks like this:
[thumb=300]http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj259/sammyjean1970/chameleon011.jpg[/thumb=300]
Throw in enough peyote, and I could fancy riding on it's back and then making some art work about the trip. <!--B;)--><img src="http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Smilies/wink.gif" border=0><!--E-->

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by bluescat48, posted 10-09-2009 11:23 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by bluescat48, posted 10-12-2009 4:18 PM SammyJean has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 395 of 530 (530181)
10-12-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by SammyJean
10-12-2009 3:58 PM


Re: Coal Mine Artifacts
Maybe if you fed it enough. Just goes to show that any old artifact can be just as confusing as some modern art.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by SammyJean, posted 10-12-2009 3:58 PM SammyJean has not replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5214 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 396 of 530 (530272)
10-12-2009 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by Percy
10-12-2009 9:50 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
Beneficial mutations may be rare when compared to deleterious mutations, but they occur at a more than sufficient rate
Not it won't.
Here's why: genetic entropy.
Example, the drosophila house fly has been taken through thousands of generations with many and different variations...within the fly family. For instance, in the experiment on flies, out of 3,000 identified mutations for Drosophila melanogaster, none of them produced a more successful fruit fly...& even more, estimates of the rate of all mutations are of the order of 10^8 to 10^9 per nucleotide that is, per ‘letter’ per generation. Maynard Smith, J., 1989. Evolutionary Genetics, Oxford University Press, New York, p.61.
As far as the outcome of mutations they were able to produce things like this:
[thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/mutant_fly.jpg[/thumb=300]
and this:
[thumb=200]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/antp.jpg[/thumb=200]
mutated antanae.
But they could never produce anything like this:
[thumb=200]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/TJRA-Bee.jpg[/thumb=200]
Neither nature nor even genetic engineering can produce such an effect. Had they proved that nature could do this or even if they could arrange the DNA code in drosophilas to produce such an organism there would be no debate over creation vs evolution. But the fact is they can't and nature won't cooperate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Percy, posted 10-12-2009 9:50 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by greyseal, posted 10-13-2009 2:47 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 399 by Huntard, posted 10-13-2009 4:32 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 403 by Percy, posted 10-13-2009 7:22 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 397 of 530 (530336)
10-13-2009 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by Calypsis4
10-12-2009 8:33 PM


Re: Selection Pressures
Beneficial mutations may be rare when compared to deleterious mutations, but they occur at a more than sufficient rate
Not it won't.
Here's why: genetic entropy.
What's genetic entropy? If it's a made-up creationist term without any kind of real work put behind it then it's worthless as a reason.
I may as well yes: yes it will, here's why: genetic efervescence
useful? No.
Don't do that.
Now, for the rest of what you said, you do realise the scale of what you're actually talking about, yes?
3000 generations of fruit flies is miniscule in human terms, it's even less of a mini-miniscule in evolutionary terms, which operates over thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and even millions, tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years.
Multiply those 3000 generations by 10^6 and you'd be getting somewhere.
Already you can see changes - mutant antennae that turn BACK into legs.
And you tell us that evolution can't happen?
I don't get it.
I mean of course, you'll pull out the old canard "no new information" as if it meant something (it's as empty as "genetic entropy"), you'll talk about innate capabilities as if the fact that a mutation turning off the legs-into-antenna gene (displaying that, in the past, the antennae WERE legs, and have therefore EVOLVED) were a mere coincidence, or somehow "god's plan".
I just don't get it.
Feel free to say "and you never will".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Calypsis4, posted 10-12-2009 8:33 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2009 3:51 AM greyseal has replied
 Message 404 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-13-2009 7:26 AM greyseal has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 398 of 530 (530341)
10-13-2009 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by greyseal
10-13-2009 2:47 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
greyseal writes:
What's genetic entropy? If it's a made-up creationist term without any kind of real work put behind it then it's worthless as a reason.
I was wondering the same thing. Here is what I found:
In the thermodynamic study of genetic processes, genetic entropy is a term defined in 2005 by American plant genetics researcher John Sanford as the mutational entropy affects within large genomes that cannot be reversed by natural selection. [1] This, according to Sanford, makes the eventual extinction of such genomes inevitable. Due to the religious undertones used in Sanford's book, the term has since been taken up by the intelligent design and creation science movement.
Now, that's not to take anything away from Mr. Sanford, but....he IS a creationist. But, the book is just that: a book. Not a peer reviewed journal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by greyseal, posted 10-13-2009 2:47 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by greyseal, posted 10-13-2009 6:19 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 399 of 530 (530346)
10-13-2009 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by Calypsis4
10-12-2009 8:33 PM


Re: Selection Pressures
Calypsis4 writes:
...the drosophila house fly...
House fly? Drosophila is not a house fly, Calypsis. It's a fruit fly. A house fly is Musca domestica. As you can see, no Drosophila in there.
And you're supposed to know better about biology the the experts?
Here, some pictures, since you seem to like them so much:
Drosophila:
Musca domestica:

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Calypsis4, posted 10-12-2009 8:33 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 400 of 530 (530357)
10-13-2009 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by hooah212002
10-13-2009 3:51 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
Now, that's not to take anything away from Mr. Sanford, but....he IS a creationist. But, the book is just that: a book. Not a peer reviewed journal.
Why am I not surprised?
It's as worthless as "no new information", "kinds", "baraminology" and everything else like it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2009 3:51 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 401 of 530 (530359)
10-13-2009 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Peepul
10-12-2009 10:35 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
That's right, Percy. And around three of those mutations are deleterious. So for every one of your "beneficial" mutations you will get 20,000 deleterious ones. It's not going to get you very far!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Peepul, posted 10-12-2009 10:35 AM Peepul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by Percy, posted 10-13-2009 7:15 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 422 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-14-2009 11:28 AM Kaichos Man has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 402 of 530 (530363)
10-13-2009 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by Kaichos Man
10-13-2009 6:53 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
Kaichos Man writes:
That's right, Percy. And around three of those mutations are deleterious. So for every one of your "beneficial" mutations you will get 20,000 deleterious ones. It's not going to get you very far!
Civilization and science have advanced in the face of mountains of bad ideas because we throw away the bad ideas and keep the good ones. Evolution works in the same way, throwing away the bad mutations and keeping the good ones.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-13-2009 6:53 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 403 of 530 (530364)
10-13-2009 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by Calypsis4
10-12-2009 8:33 PM


Re: Selection Pressures
Hi Calypsis4,
In my example I assumed a ration of good to bad mutations of one in a million. You don't provide any details about the fruit fly (not house fly) experiments, but they seem consistent with my low occurence rate for beneficial mutations.
The important point to keep in mind is that evolution discards bad mutations and keeps good ones, and that's why it works so successfully at producing adaptation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Calypsis4, posted 10-12-2009 8:33 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-13-2009 7:39 AM Percy has replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 404 of 530 (530365)
10-13-2009 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by greyseal
10-13-2009 2:47 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
What's genetic entropy? If it's a made-up creationist term
All terms are made up at some time, by somebody. In this case, it's a term coined by a respected Cornell University researcher to describe the process of genomes being inexorably strafed into nonsense by mutations. The same observed, documented process upon which Motoo Kimura based his Neutral Theory of Evolution.
Don't like the term? Make up your own. Genetic Erosion? Genetic Atrophy? Genetic Scrambling?
Multiply those 3000 generations by 10^6 and you'd be getting somewhere.
Already you can see changes - mutant antennae that turn BACK into legs.
Three billion generations to achieve a back-muation? My word, you evolutionists are so easily pleased!
displaying that, in the past, the antennae WERE legs, and have therefore EVOLVED
You are suggesting that some ancestor of D. Melanogaster had two legs growing out of its head. Reference, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by greyseal, posted 10-13-2009 2:47 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by greyseal, posted 10-13-2009 8:03 AM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 408 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-13-2009 8:09 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 405 of 530 (530367)
10-13-2009 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by Percy
10-13-2009 7:22 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
The important point to keep in mind is that evolution discards bad mutations and keeps good ones
But it doesn't, Percy. Motoo Kimura showed that the vast majority of mutations are neutral, though his compatriot Ohno later revised that to Nearly Neutral. That means that apart from the odd lethal mutation, the copying errors simply accrue, gradually lowering the fitness of the organism until natural selection comes along and eliminates the most mutated. Out go those with 100 mutations, leaving those with 95. And as for these mythical "beneficial" mutations, you'll notice evolutionists are happy to include in their number back mutations (repairs to formerly deleterious mutations) and deleterious mutations causing an increase in fitness (e.g. flightless beetles). Beggars can't be choosers, as they say.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Percy, posted 10-13-2009 7:22 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-13-2009 8:05 AM Kaichos Man has not replied
 Message 410 by Percy, posted 10-13-2009 8:14 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024