|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: WTF is wrong with people | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What I know is a lot less limited than YOU think.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
How would you know if you were looking through the wrong end of the telescope? What I know is a lot less limited than YOU think. What possibilities exist for self-correction in your method?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You're off topic and you're violating the rule against attacking the person, both. How about dealing with the issues being discussed or getting off the thread.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
You're off topic and... You want on topic? How about your claims that genetic diversity decreases and all mutations are deleterious? If that is the case, please explain how there is more diversity within the protists in the chart below than in all the subsequent species. And please explain how, over some 3.7 billion years, those deleterious mutations did not accumulate and wipe out everything.
In actual fact, mutations are changes, of which some are deleterious, some neutral, and a few beneficial. The deleterious mutations do not tend to propagate to subsequent generations, the neutral ones usually don't matter, while the beneficial ones do tend to propagate. 3.7 billion years is a lot of time for mutations to occur and to increase genetic diversity through speciation. In fact, this is what we see. And 3.7 billion years would have been more than sufficient time for deleterious mutations to accumulate and wipe out all life. Clearly that didn't happen. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it--as would a few tens of thousands of biologists and other scientists.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How about your claims that genetic diversity decreases and all mutations are deleterious? If that is the case, please explain how there is more diversity within the protists in the chart below than in all the subsequent species. First of all I'm a creationist, so in my view all the "subsequent" species have nothing whatever to do with the species placed at the bottom of the chart, that's just the usual made up story. In separate species or kinds each will have its own history of genetic diversity unrelated to the others. But wherever there is true genetic descent of subpopulations from a mother population, that's not hard to explain if you mean what I mean by "diversity" which is not at all clear from how you've worded this. Are you talking about GENETIC diversity or phenotypic diversity? As long as the primary or mother population remains very large it can retain a great deal of genetic diversity. The populations that lose genetic diversity are those that "evolve" from the primary population because they are created from smaller numbers of individuals and are confined to the genetic possibilities contained only in those individuals. New traits develop from the combination of the selected alleles, the new gene/allele frequencies determining a new set of traits. Traits that were dominant in the earlier population may be hardly represented at all in the new mix, so new traits will emerge. Meanwhile the genetic diversity of the original population may remain very high if its numbers are high.
And please explain how, over some 3.7 billion years, those deleterious mutations did not accumulate and wipe out everything. First of all WHAT mutations are you talking about? I'm only talking about built-in genetic possibilities, range of alleles per gene etc. These are shuffled with each new population isolation, and eventually those that define the new traits remain while others drop out. The dropping out is the genetic decrease I'm talking about. Second, of course there were no millions of years in any case, mutations or not. If there had been the accumulation of mutations WOULD have wiped it all out millions of years ago.
In actual fact, mutations are changes, of which some are deleterious, some neutral, and a few beneficial. VERY VERY few are beneficial and those that are are of a very iffy sort, often involving some kind of exchange as the case with sickle cell anemia providing protection from malaria. Not the stuff of healthy genetics.
The deleterious mutations do not tend to propagate to subsequent generations, the neutral ones usually don't matter, while the beneficial ones do tend to propagate. That's all purely an article of faith, or an artifact of theory, assumed, not proven. There is an enormous number of known genetic diseases, thousands of them. The ones that "don't matter" don't have an effect on the phenotype that has been observed, but otherwise you really don't know if they matter or not. Since they change the sequence of DNA it's hard to imagine they don't have SOME effect, perhaps leading eventually to consigning that segment of DNA to the Junk category.
3.7 billion years is a lot of time for mutations to occur and to increase genetic diversity through speciation. In fact, this is what we see. No, it is not what you actually SEE, it's what you infer from the theory that tells you mutations are the stuff of variation and that millions of years have transpired. There is no evidence whatever of this being the case, it's pure theory. But my argument is very basic. If you expect to get variations or recognizable breeds, or "speciation" which does occur but is a misnomer -- it's just another breed, one that can't interbreed with former population, that's all -- genetic diversity will interfere with that goal. The only way such breeds or variations or the misnamed new "species" form, in nature or in domestic breeding, is by a reduction in genetic diversity in the new population that forms the new breed, so that the traits of the new population can be allowed to develop without interference.
And 3.7 billion years would have been more than sufficient time for deleterious mutations to accumulate and wipe out all life. Clearly that didn't happen. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it--as would a few tens of thousands of biologists and other scientists. Since all you have is theory and no evidence for any of this, asking me for evidence is a bit disingenuous. What I have is reasoning from my own theory and it holds together very nicely to explain what actually exists and occurs both in nature and in domestic breeding. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
You have reaffirmed my faith in creationists.
Your post contains nothing but claims which have long since been disproved by science, liberally mixed with misrepresentation and misunderstanding. I don't have all evening to explain all of these to you, and you wouldn't accept them anyway. So I'll just wish you a good evening.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You remember how you don't actually know anything about genetics? This would be a case in point.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
Since all you have is theory and no evidence for any of this, asking me for evidence is a bit disingenuous. What I have is reasoning from my own theory and it holds together very nicely to explain what actually exists and occurs both in nature and in domestic breeding. Ok first of all a Theory is the best explenation for the evidence at hand, it has to work 100% of the time and explain all the evidence or else its junked. Secondly you dont have a THEORY you at best have a hypothesis, you have to test your hypothesis to see if it works 100% of the time and eplains every single piece of evidence at hand.
Second, of course there were no millions of years in any case, mutations or not. If there had been the accumulation of mutations WOULD have wiped it all out millions of years ago. About 30 DIFFERENT dating methods working on DIFFERENT clocks and DIFFERENT principles ALL AGREE that the world is no where close to 10 000 years old or less your "theory" does not allow for such a long period of time it gets scrapped if you publish it it might one day be a footnote in some university school book as a failed theory. But for you the scientific method does not matter since you ignore this "slight" hole in your "theory" and continue on as if it does not matter.
First of all WHAT mutations are you talking about? I'm only talking about built-in genetic possibilities, range of alleles per gene etc. These are shuffled with each new population isolation, and eventually those that define the new traits remain while others drop out. The dropping out is the genetic decrease I'm talking about. NO built in genetic possibilities are NOT MUTATIONS a mutation is a MISTAKE in the COPYING of the GENOME. As an example a gen that was TCGA in the parent is TCCA in the offspring. For a few million you can have your whole genome decoded and the genome of your parrents and you will find that about 4 Gens are different from both your parrent's. You are a mutant as am i and every other living thing on the planet. Most likely those mutations are "natural" dont give you any advantage or hindernce but its possible that they do give you an advantage or a disadvantage.
VERY VERY few are beneficial and those that are are of a very iffy sort, often involving some kind of exchange as the case with sickle cell anemia providing protection from malaria. Not the stuff of healthy genetics. It all depends on the environment Who do you think has a better chance of surviving if a new ice age comes You or him
But on the other hand who do you think has a better chance of getting laied and having children with no ice age you or him? And that is how evolution works a mutation that helps the individual in a given enviorment has a slightly better chance of getting passed on to the next generation who have a slightly better chance of passing it on to the next and the next and the next.... While a mutation that hinders an individual has a lesser or no chance of getting passed on to the next generation. This is caused when an EXTRA CHUNK of genes appears on the X chromosome. A chinise and a mexican Hypertrichosis suferrer both had an extra chunk in the same place but the chunk was DIFFERENT its assumed that this extra chunk activates the SOX3 gen.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Well that's certainly on topic. A nice demonstration of what IS wrong with creationists.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
The topic is about how creationists can believe such nonsense in the face of all of the evidence and contrary to any logic. I have not attacked you as a person; I'm saying that you hold idiotic beliefs because your methodology is flawed. You're off topic and you're violating the rule against attacking the person, both. So let's try again: If, in the course of human events, you could ever be the slightest teeny bit wrong about anything, how would you know? What possibilities are there in your methodology for correcting errors?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Your post contains nothing but claims which have long since been disproved by science, liberally mixed with misrepresentation and misunderstanding. You put up a typical ridiculous evolutionist fantasy chart that implies genetic descent of both plants and animals from an assumed original undefined Protist, and you ask me how I explain the great "diversity" of "subsequent" creatures? I have NO idea what you are talking about or what you expect a creationist to do with such a blatant piece of fantasy propaganda. If I didn't answer the question it's because the question was incoherent. You are presumably challenging what I've been arguing about genetic diversity but nothing in your challenge has anything to do with anything I've said. You are talking here about phenotypic diversity it seems clear now, which has nothing to do with anything I was talking about. And that phenotypic diversity is just the usual evolutionist fantasy that you can get new species from previous species, whereas of course what I've been arguing is that the actual simple facts of genetics -- population genetics that is -- make it impossible to get anything other than variations within the genome of a given species, because in order to get a variation at all, a breed, a race, etc., genetic material must be eliminated from the population of the new breed that was present in the earlier population. Try some human races for an example. Asians pretty clearly have alleles for straight black hair and dark eyes, and LACK alleles for blue or light eyes, curly hair and any color hair other than black. This is what I mean by reduced genetic diversity. It is what has to happen whenever you get a new race or breed or variety. Perhaps somewhere in the greater population of Asians the alleles for those other variants do exist in scattered individuals, that could be possible, although after centuries of inbreeding unlikely. Even if they do exist the chances of their being expressed are very slim. Same with any reproductively isolated inbreeding population. It will be characterized by whatever genetic material, usually alleles for its particular traits, happened to exist in the original founding population of that race or breed. It is because of this natural inevitable principle of population genetics that it is impossible for any breed or race or variety to vary beyond the parameters of the genome of the species or kind. There is no doubt a great deal of genetic diversity left in most of the human races, though it would not be the case if the original founders were a very small number (within the last millennium anyway, not back to Noah), but that diversity would not affect the major traits that define the population. Frako claimed he could just vary a dog breed infinitely, a typical evolutionist fantasy. He could breed it for hairlessness or a certain type of tail for instance. No he could not UNLESS the genetic material/alleles for those traits exist in that breed or chosen individual already. You cannot get blue eyed creatures from a genetic pool that does not contain the alleles for blue eyes. You cannot get hairlessness or a certain tail type from a genetic pool that does not contain the alleles for those traits. It is pure fantasy that says variation is completely openended. You can IMAGINE anything, and that's what evolutionists do, but in REALITY you CANNOT get any trait unless the alleles for that trait are present in the individual or population you want to breed. So again, I have no idea what your chart was intended to accomplish except to impose the usual evolutionist fairy tale on me, but in actual reality based on the principles of population genetics there is no way you can get a new species from an old, and there is certainly nothing whatever in that chart that says anything about mutations for pete's sake. All that is pure fantasy. Not to mention that mutations that occur after a breed is established only interfere with it anyway.
I don't have all evening to explain all of these to you, and you wouldn't accept them anyway. I understand that it's really too much to ask of you to consider that your life's work is based on a delusion. All I can hope is that eventually someone might be willing to give it a rethink nevertheless.
So I'll just wish you a good evening. And to you. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
I understand that it's really too much to ask of you to consider that your life's work is based on a delusion Wow. Condescend much? And am I the only one that finds irony in somebody who believes in talking snakes, dinosaurs and man living together, a giant wooden boat holding two of every animal, etc,etc, calling someone else delusional? Does EVC have a dramatic irony meter built into its JavaScript and PHP code? If so, I think it just red-lined."Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yeah, I enjoy needling evolutionists when I can, just as they needle me.
And you are off topic and committing the same violation of the rule against personal attack that Ringo was doing. The right thing to do with an argument is address the argument itself, but of course evolutionists suffer from an inability to do anything but make charts that demonstrate their fantasies, actual reality eludes them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All you did in that post was repeat the usual Evo Credo, nothing that isn't already familiar to us all. As for the mutations each of us possess individually, I would expect some of them to develop genetic disease. Mutations ARE mistakes, as you say, mistakes in the replication of the genome, and also in the bigger sense that they are some kind of disease process in themselves, not part of the normal functioning of the genome. That's just part of the Evo Fantasy.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
It is because of this natural inevitable principle of population genetics that it is impossible for any breed or race or variety to vary beyond the parameters of the genome of the species or kind. At the heart of your argument is the claim that no new mutations arise. That is clearly not the case Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin By Rick WeissWashington Post Staff Writer Friday, December 16, 2005 Scientists said yesterday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife. This article shows clearly that you are wrong. The mutation for light skin occurred in two different populations, and in two different ways. This is not an expression of something that was there earlier but a mutation which led to new characteristics. There are many other such examples. The mutation which permitted high-altitude adaptation occurred in three different populations, and was different in each case (Tibetans, Ethiopians, and Peruvians). Those mutations are not present in earlier populations. Your claims are clearly not based on scientific findings.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024