Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution falsifies God/s?
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 166 of 253 (727982)
05-22-2014 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by faceman
05-22-2014 1:39 AM


Re: a small step maybe
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:
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.[19]
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by faceman, posted 05-22-2014 1:39 AM faceman has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 167 of 253 (727983)
05-22-2014 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by faceman
05-22-2014 1:59 AM


Re: a small step maybe
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by faceman, posted 05-22-2014 1:59 AM faceman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by faceman, posted 05-27-2014 12:48 AM Theodoric has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 168 of 253 (727997)
05-22-2014 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by faceman
05-22-2014 1:47 AM


Re: there are mutations, and then there are mutations
faceman writes:
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.
But with DNA the only agreement is between the molecules.
Carbon: "I'll make four bonds. Any takers?
Oxygen: "I'll take two."
Carbon: "Okay, two more. Any takers?"
No external agreement is necessary (or even noticed).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by faceman, posted 05-22-2014 1:47 AM faceman has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 169 of 253 (728117)
05-23-2014 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by faceman
05-19-2014 10:01 PM


the question is - how do you measure "information"
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 ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by faceman, posted 05-19-2014 10:01 PM faceman has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 170 of 253 (728118)
05-23-2014 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by faceman
05-22-2014 2:15 AM


once more around the bushes
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.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by faceman, posted 05-22-2014 2:15 AM faceman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by faceman, posted 05-24-2014 1:22 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 171 of 253 (728119)
05-23-2014 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by faceman
05-22-2014 1:47 AM


still doesn't answer the question
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.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by faceman, posted 05-22-2014 1:47 AM faceman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by faceman, posted 05-24-2014 1:31 PM RAZD has replied

  
faceman
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 149
From: MN, USA
Joined: 04-25-2014


Message 172 of 253 (728163)
05-24-2014 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Pressie
05-22-2014 4:04 AM


Re: a small step maybe
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Pressie, posted 05-22-2014 4:04 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2014 1:45 PM faceman has replied

  
faceman
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 149
From: MN, USA
Joined: 04-25-2014


Message 173 of 253 (728165)
05-24-2014 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by bluegenes
05-21-2014 10:36 AM


Re: Why would a YEC argue against YEC?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by bluegenes, posted 05-21-2014 10:36 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Coyote, posted 05-24-2014 3:09 PM faceman has not replied
 Message 185 by bluegenes, posted 05-25-2014 8:40 PM faceman has replied

  
faceman
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 149
From: MN, USA
Joined: 04-25-2014


Message 174 of 253 (728166)
05-24-2014 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by RAZD
05-23-2014 11:29 PM


Re: once more around the bushes
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by RAZD, posted 05-23-2014 11:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-24-2014 2:43 PM faceman has replied
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2014 8:15 AM faceman has not replied
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2014 8:26 AM faceman has not replied
 Message 220 by herebedragons, posted 05-27-2014 12:04 PM faceman has not replied

  
faceman
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 149
From: MN, USA
Joined: 04-25-2014


Message 175 of 253 (728167)
05-24-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by RAZD
05-23-2014 11:40 PM


Re: still doesn't answer the question
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 05-23-2014 11:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2014 1:50 PM faceman has replied
 Message 188 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2014 8:31 AM faceman has not replied
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2014 8:48 AM faceman has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 176 of 253 (728168)
05-24-2014 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by faceman
05-24-2014 12:54 PM


Re: a small step maybe
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by faceman, posted 05-24-2014 12:54 PM faceman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by faceman, posted 05-24-2014 2:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 177 of 253 (728169)
05-24-2014 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by faceman
05-24-2014 1:31 PM


Re: still doesn't answer the question
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by faceman, posted 05-24-2014 1:31 PM faceman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by faceman, posted 05-24-2014 2:19 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
faceman
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 149
From: MN, USA
Joined: 04-25-2014


Message 178 of 253 (728171)
05-24-2014 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Dr Adequate
05-24-2014 1:45 PM


Re: a small step maybe
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2014 1:45 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2014 2:29 PM faceman has not replied

  
faceman
Member (Idle past 3386 days)
Posts: 149
From: MN, USA
Joined: 04-25-2014


Message 179 of 253 (728172)
05-24-2014 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dr Adequate
05-24-2014 1:50 PM


Re: still doesn't answer the question
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2014 1:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2014 2:26 PM faceman has not replied
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 05-25-2014 2:18 PM faceman has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 180 of 253 (728173)
05-24-2014 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by faceman
05-24-2014 2:19 PM


Re: still doesn't answer the question
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by faceman, posted 05-24-2014 2:19 PM faceman 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