|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution falsifies God/s? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
Neutral, deleterious and beneficial are all just mutations from a previously "normal" (non-mutated) gene. Many of the useful mutations are actually a net loss of the original useful code. There are no normal (non-mutated) genes. All the various alleles of a gene are mutations. How could you possibly tell which allele is the normal one? You just made this up.
Most mutations are neutral. The more neutral mutations there are, the less original useful material the organism has left to work with. Neutral is not useful - it's just in the way. That is not how it works. The neutral genes are neutral in terms of fitness, but they still function just fine. There is no original useful material, as you call it, in each organism. The genes have been passed on to offspring, with modification, over and over, since the first common ancestor.
Neutral does not mean non-functional. __________________________________________________
Natural selection works at the molecular level now? Weeding out only the bad mutations? Natural Selection will obviously weed out genes that affect the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce, if the organism dies before it can do that. The genes that are carried in the rest of the population will be passed on, but if there were new beneficial mutations in the organism that carried the lethal mutation then they are lost also. The more common situation is that each organism in the population carries a few mutations, some inherited and some new, and some of the members of the population have fewer offspring than others, and over time fewer and fewer descendants.
Genetic load is a bullshit term that creationists grab on to because sounds like it means something that supports their ideas, but it doesn't. There is no evidence that a genome can be overburdened to the point it quits functioning.
quote: Emphasis mine.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
The stupidity is astounding. Why don't you actually listen to what he was saying instead of believing the wing nuts.
Here is an explanation that even you might understand.Joe Garcia and the Derp Gap Fucking rightwingers will lie about anything.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
faceman writes:
But with DNA the only agreement is between the molecules.
But when I arrange the letters in a proper order and in a manner that you and I agree upon (in terms of a language), then suddenly we have communication.Carbon: "I'll make four bonds. Any takers?
No external agreement is necessary (or even noticed).
Oxygen: "I'll take two." Carbon: "Okay, two more. Any takers?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
So I could slap some random code down into a compiler and out would come a fully functional program? Then to publish a new version, all I'd need to do is add some more random code? Well I've been doing it all wrong then. Curiously, I asked you to define information in a way that can be quantified measured and compared. You don't seem to realize that until you can do that any pronouncements about information not increasing are just fantasy wishful thinking bollocks, yes?
Yes it's the arrangement of the code, in an ever growing genome, that's vital for the ToE not to blow. Nope.
Message 126:
adding different information to any mating partner in a population increases the genetic diversity in the population of animals It increases the genetic load, and since most mutations are not beneficial, that can only lead to a genetic extinction. And wrong again. You really should study a topic you think to debate on in order to stop making silly statements at odds with the facts. And you really should learn when terms used by pretenders are actually just worthless jumbles of letters that carry no inherent meaning of use to science in general and biology in particular. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : if you don't know ...by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The majority are neutral. Indeed. In the current ecology.
Message 158: Most mutations are neutral. The more neutral mutations there are, the less original useful material the organism has left to work with. Neutral is not useful - it's just in the way. Curiously, if it were "in the way" then it would be deleterious not neutral. Neutral means that it has no effect on the organism ... in the current ecology. Change the ecology and you change the equations for what is beneficial, what is neutral and what is deleterious. Fur color for example. In pocket mice. In two different locations. Mutations for black fur enabled mice to expand into the lava bed ecologies. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
asdfqweb trhbkjgnhkfgzsdcasdgfczdsfgc How's that for information? Not too informative, eh? But when I arrange the letters in a proper order and in a manner that you and I agree upon (in terms of a language), then suddenly we have communication. And curiously that still is a complete failure to define "information" in a way that can be measured, quantified and compared. Apparently it seems you have no clue, or you would have answered the question the first time, possibly held out for the second time around, but we are way beyond that stage here. Possibly because there is no way you can define "information" in a way that it is always decreasing with mutations ... and certainly not in any way that would inhibit evolution. Notice that when I say that
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. those are things that can be quantified, measured and compared, which is why we KNOW that the process of evolution occurs in life around us every day. That's how science works. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3386 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
Au contraire. All genes ever investigated are mutations from other mutated genes. Au contraire derriere - those are simply your presuppositions poking through.
Your link doesn't work, but anyway, when you Google it, you get on Wiki ( I take it that it's the reference you intended): Yes, sorry about that. I'm too conditioned to typing the A HREF tags.
One problem with calculating genetic load is that in order to do so you have to a have a perfect or optimal genotype with which to compare the population to; this kind of genotype simply does not exist. This is problem because it means that it is harder for scientists to gauge with accuracy how much load a population has, and how much load it can bear without being in danger. This means that all perceptions of genetic load should be taken with a grain of salt. My bold. Have your salt if you want, but you still need to accept genetic load is occurring. The article also states that a majority of the mutations are neutral, not beneficial. So whether we know how much load has occurred or not, we at least know that it is occurring and without an increase of beneficial information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3386 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
The standard YEC model requires the argument that past mutation rates since the Flood were far higher than they are today. This is necessary to explain the current diversity that can be directly observed on human genomes. Either Noah has to be pushed back more than 100,000 years in time to make the necessary number of generation transfers at the current mutation rate, or the past mutation rate has to be increased to be more than 20 times today's. Why would the rate need to be constant? If it started with Adam's near perfect DNA, then the accumulation of mostly neutral mutations would go virtually unnoticed for a long time. Eventually though, as more and more useful, original DNA gets mutated into neutral and garbled information, then the effects of this genetic load will lead to genetic extinction, not perfection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3386 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
Most mutations are neutral. The more neutral mutations there are, the less original useful material the organism has left to work with. Neutral is not useful - it's just in the way. Curiously, if it were "in the way" then it would be deleterious not neutral. Neutral means that it has no effect on the organism ... in the current ecology. By "in the way", I meant it will no longer be "available" to the organism as a source of useful information, like it was before it mutated into a neutral mutation. In that way, it serves no purpose and eventually could be thought of as deleterious because it will no longer help the organism stave off genetic extinction.
Change the ecology and you change the equations for what is beneficial, what is neutral and what is deleterious. So now we need to change the ecology to make the ToE work? Is that how you get neutral mutations to become beneficial? That's too clever by half.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3386 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
I'm fairly certain I've defined information correctly, but feel free to provide your own explanation if you'd like.
Notice that when I say that
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. those are things that can be quantified, measured and compared, which is why we KNOW that the process of evolution occurs in life around us every day. That's how science works. That sounds a lot like micro-evolution to me. Changing hereditary traits and the frequencies of their distributions is hardly an increase in information (genome size). Can you also quantify the increase in genome sizes (from protocell to human) by observing that mechanism in action somehow too?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Have your salt if you want, but you still need to accept genetic load is occurring. The article also states that a majority of the mutations are neutral, not beneficial. So whether we know how much load has occurred or not, we at least know that it is occurring and without an increase of beneficial information. You should stop confusing things that "we know" with things that you have made up in your head and which are contrary to observation. You seem to make these wild pronouncements based on how you think genetics ought to work. It's not how geneticists think it ought to work, and it sure as shit isn't how it does work when you look at what actually happens. These two facts are related. Obviously geneticists are restrained by having actual knowledge of real events --- unlike your imagination, which is obviously under no such restraint. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That sounds a lot like micro-evolution to me. Changing hereditary traits and the frequencies of their distributions is hardly an increase in information (genome size). Can you also quantify the increase in genome sizes (from protocell to human) by observing that mechanism in action somehow too? Obviously every insertion and every duplication increases genome size, and these have been observed by geneticists, remember those people? I mentioned them in the last post, they're the people who observe genetic phenomena rather than inventing them in their heads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3386 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
The post you replied to is one in which I mentioned genetic load and that a majority of the mutations are neutral. Do you disagree with either of those two principles, or are you just getting emotional at this point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
faceman Member (Idle past 3386 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: |
I recall a lot of cheese and whine in your last post (minus the cheese).
Can you explain how new and beneficial information can arise in the genome? How does that bode with poly-constrained DNA?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I recall a lot of cheese and whine in your last post (minus the cheese). Then your memory is tragically faulty.
Can you explain how new and beneficial information can arise in the genome? Mutation.
How does that bode with poly-constrained DNA? Definition of the word bode.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024