Answering any questions on Evolution

[mkatzwork]

These kind of fuzzy explanations are easily dispelled when you look at the details. No matter how fuzzy the description; Evolution faces too many problems that can just be over looked. Common descent between chimps and humans for instance lacks the basic number of mutations needed to support the 5 million year separation. Haldane’s dilemma is still unanswered. Fossil evidence for common descent is lacking. Real speciation is never observed except when the evolutionist redefines a species.


Fuzzy, Fuzzy, Fuzzy.



Even more so than Mr. Rabbit…

Repeating something three times doesn't make it correct, as much as you might like it to be.

If my post was fuzzy, I'm not sure what yours would count as?

Haldane unanswered? Errant nonsense in the peer-reviewed literature. Is that really the best that ID proponents have? If you want to dispute the answers that many people have given (Haldane included) to the problem he posed based on some very loose assumptions, but to just say "Haldane's dilemma is still unanswered" and then to accuse me of fuzziness is just a hair ridiculous. Nunney's paper in particular would be very hard to refute. It's easily found.

Please have a go if you like.

Fossil evidence is as scarce as it SHOULD be given the likelihood of fossil creation in the natural environments that chimpanzees typically live(d) in, and I guess the only thing that would satisfy you is the actual common ancestor...but the genomic evidence is extremely hard to explain away, no?

What point, precisely please (cite from it if you like) was fuzzy? My point was that the theory of evolution like many things makes predictions about large pictures and not about specific individuals, and that one shouldn't draw emotive conclusions about such things. Not quite sure what that is fuzzy about, certainly not fuzzy, fuzzy fuzzy. I think a disrespectful dismissal of a point that I was even trying to make is considerably fuzzier, fuzzier, fuzzier.

 

[Zaius137]

Repeating something three times doesn't make it correct, as much as you might like it to be.

If my post was fuzzy, I'm not sure what yours would count as?

Haldane unanswered? Errant nonsense in the peer-reviewed literature. Is that really the best that ID proponents have? If you want to dispute the answers that many people have given (Haldane included) to the problem he posed based on some very loose assumptions, but to just say "Haldane's dilemma is still unanswered" and then to accuse me of fuzziness is just a hair ridiculous. Nunney's paper in particular would be very hard to refute. It's easily found.

Please have a go if you like.

Fossil evidence is as scarce as it SHOULD be given the likelihood of fossil creation in the natural environments that chimpanzees typically live(d) in, and I guess the only thing that would satisfy you is the actual common ancestor...but the genomic evidence is extremely hard to explain away, no?

What point, precisely please (cite from it if you like) was fuzzy? My point was that the theory of evolution like many things makes predictions about large pictures and not about specific individuals, and that one shouldn't draw emotive conclusions about such things. Not quite sure what that is fuzzy about, certainly not fuzzy, fuzzy fuzzy. I think a disrespectful dismissal of a point that I was even trying to make is considerably fuzzier, fuzzier, fuzzier.

Thanks for the information.


Here is the Nunney paper:

http://www.sekj.org/PDF/anz40-free/anz40-185.pdf

I hope you noted what the simulation used as birth rates (R). Nunney is using between 10 and 500 per female each generation. That is just funny. Do you know what current birth rates and fecundity is around the world? Maybe Nunney was talking about bacteria. Do you know Haldane’s work concerned slow reproducing populations like humans? So can you say Nunney’s simulation contradicts Haldane’s work?

I briefly reviewed what some of his other assumptions are (very speculative to say the least) no wonder he has not released his simulation to he most ardent critics.. Here is an article I found in “creationwiki”…

Evolutionary geneticist Leonard Nunney reported on his computer simulation that evolves dramatically faster than the Haldane limit. Walter ReMine contacted Nunney and requested a copy of Nunney's software for detailed study of its results and methods. Nunney declined, saying he would not share his software with "people who do not publish in peer-reviewed journals" -- which is evolutionist-code for 'anti-evolutionists'. Given evolutionist reluctance to have their results verified, Nunney's simulation must be viewed dimly, especially since it contradicts other simulations.

Haldane's Dilemma - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

I believe I am safe in saying Nunney is another evolution rascal with an agenda.

Now maybe you can answer what other participants cannot or have not tried. Why do I keep getting a Human Pan divergence of 33 million years given current empirical evidence for the mutation rates in humans? Here are the calculations.

Work it out for yourself… I will do the values again using 60 mutations per generation and 3% divergence.

My 3% is form…

... on closer inspection we differ by 1.2% in the functional genes that code for proteins. And we also differ by about 3% in the non-coding DNA regions, so called "junk DNA" - although this phrase seems to be losing meaning as some of these regions regulate genes and possess as yet unknown functions. So overall we can say that chimp and human DNA is about 96% identical - which is still very close. If you were to lay both genomes out side by side you would see that base for base they are 96% similar.

Comparing Chimp DNA and Human DNA

t= number of generations since divergence (Generation =20 years)
k= percentage of sequence divergence Estimated at 3%
Ne= effective size of population (10^4)
(u)=mutation rate (9x10^-9) (60/7x10^9)

From Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans

t= .5(k/u-4Ne)

in generations that is 1.65 million or 33 million years since the human chimp divergence…

 

[Trogool]

Thanks for the information.


Here is the Nunney paper:

http://www.sekj.org/PDF/anz40-free/anz40-185.pdf

I hope you noted what the simulation used as birth rates (R). Nunney is using between 10 and 500 per female each generation. That is just funny. Do you know what current birth rates and fecundity is around the world? Maybe Nunney was talking about bacteria. Do you know Haldane’s work concerned slow reproducing populations like humans? So can you say Nunney’s simulation contradicts Haldane’s work?

I briefly reviewed what some of his other assumptions are (very speculative to say the least) no wonder he has not released his simulation to he most ardent critics.. Here is an article I found in “creationwiki”…

Evolutionary geneticist Leonard Nunney reported on his computer simulation that evolves dramatically faster than the Haldane limit. Walter ReMine contacted Nunney and requested a copy of Nunney's software for detailed study of its results and methods. Nunney declined, saying he would not share his software with "people who do not publish in peer-reviewed journals" -- which is evolutionist-code for 'anti-evolutionists'. Given evolutionist reluctance to have their results verified, Nunney's simulation must be viewed dimly, especially since it contradicts other simulations.

Haldane's Dilemma - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

I believe I am safe in saying Nunney is another evolution rascal with an agenda.

Now maybe you can answer what other participants cannot or have not tried. Why do I keep getting a Human Pan divergence of 33 million years given current empirical evidence for the mutation rates in humans? Here are the calculations.

Work it out for yourself… I will do the values again using 60 mutations per generation and 3% divergence.

My 3% is form…

... on closer inspection we differ by 1.2% in the functional genes that code for proteins. And we also differ by about 3% in the non-coding DNA regions, so called "junk DNA" - although this phrase seems to be losing meaning as some of these regions regulate genes and possess as yet unknown functions. So overall we can say that chimp and human DNA is about 96% identical - which is still very close. If you were to lay both genomes out side by side you would see that base for base they are 96% similar.

Comparing Chimp DNA and Human DNA

t= number of generations since divergence (Generation =20 years)
k= percentage of sequence divergence Estimated at 3%
Ne= effective size of population (10^4)
(u)=mutation rate (9x10^-9) (60/7x10^9)

From Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans

t= .5(k/u-4Ne)

in generations that is 1.65 million or 33 million years since the human chimp divergence…

Lol at Creationwiki.

 

[Zaius137]

Lol at Creationwiki.

Trogool… we really need an in depth conversation on what you have accepted as the truth. I spend an inordinate amount of time studding such matters as the proofs of evolution. You know I can honestly say without any reservation that the Christian has every right to know the science is on their side.

Increase you understanding and faith believe in the truths of the Bible.

 

[NailsII]

Work it out for yourself… I will do the values again using 60 mutations per generation and 3% divergence.

My 3% is form…

... on closer inspection we differ by 1.2% in the functional genes that code for proteins. And we also differ by about 3% in the non-coding DNA regions, so called "junk DNA" - although this phrase seems to be losing meaning as some of these regions regulate genes and possess as yet unknown functions. So overall we can say that chimp and human DNA is about 96% identical - which is still very close. If you were to lay both genomes out side by side you would see that base for base they are 96% similar.

Comparing Chimp DNA and Human DNA

t= number of generations since divergence (Generation =20 years)
k= percentage of sequence divergence Estimated at 3%
Ne= effective size of population (10^4)
(u)=mutation rate (9x10^-9) (60/7x10^9)

From Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans

t= .5(k/u-4Ne)

in generations that is 1.65 million or 33 million years since the human chimp divergence…

The paper also says that three human DNA samples were used - or is Dr Ryder a chimp?

Samples:
For each locus, two humans and one common chimpanzee were surveyed. Human genomic DNAs were provided by Dr. M. F. Hammer from the Y chromosome consortium DNA repository and represent one African male and one Caucasian male. Male chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) DNA was provided by Dr. O. A. Ryder.

Trogool… we really need an in depth conversation on what you have accepted as the truth. I spend an inordinate amount of time studding such matters as the proofs of evolution. You know I can honestly say without any reservation that the Christian has every right to know the science is on their side.

Increase you understanding and faith believe in the truths of the Bible.

How many times do we have to say this?
Even if all of science ever was just made up, a lie, a conspiracy, can you see how far you have to go to believe in god?
It really is a quantum leap, especially if you pick just one god out of the many.

If the science really was on your side, then we would all be Christians.
It really is as simple as that.
Then there would be no need for faith, because you would have evidence - and lots of it.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think X-Men and the Elephant Man have a lot to answer for in terms of people thinking the random genetic mutations that we know occur can be considered 'errors' or 'corruptions' and that they somehow create 'misfits' or 'mutants'.

Whilst some genetic mutations can cause conditions/syndromes etc. that are undeniably unpleasant, unbeneficial, and on our emotive level, sad - they are RANDOM. <snip>

I'll repeat this illustration again. My apologies to those who'd read it.

Look at every persons face in the world. Each one is a variation or "mutation" as some say. Clearly there is nothing random about it.

 

[SkyWriting]

It sounds like you've had very little experience on seminary faculties, the administrative structures of ministry organizations, nor even the politics of the average mega-church pastoral staff!

My home church was the local church that was populated by the leaders of our seminary
at that time and my fellow youth were the children of the seminarians.

Lol. It's just amazing how you can be so wrong about every
assumption you make about me. One thing right after another.
I am very aware of ministers who do have Jesus charge of their
life....and those who do not. I've grew up with the disparity all my
childhood and never joined any church, mostly for that reason.

That and because my church was worthless except for the coffee and donuts.
The Seminarians has enough "religion" in their lives as a profession.
On Sunday, they just wanted to relax and listen to pleasant sermons
that didn't say much of anything. So my church was lead by milk-toast
leaders.

But I've spent time in Mega-Churches as well, and met with leaders
there and had bible study with them on occasion. Face to face discussion
about issues were you find out what people really think.

People can learn a lot without living in your shoes.
You'll understand that when you grow up.

 

[Zaius137]

The paper also says that three human DNA samples were used - or is Dr Ryder a chimp?



How many times do we have to say this?
Even if all of science ever was just made up, a lie, a conspiracy, can you see how far you have to go to believe in god?
It really is a quantum leap, especially if you pick just one god out of the many.

If the science really was on your side, then we would all be Christians.
It really is as simple as that.
Then there would be no need for faith, because you would have evidence - and lots of it.

I think I agree with your statement…

No one can be argued into the belief in God; if they are, they can be argued out of that belief. I know that that the Holy Spirit is the only mechanism for someone to accept Jesus; it is a mystery to me.

 

[mkatzwork]

I'll repeat this illustration again. My apologies to those who'd read it.

Look at every persons face in the world. Each one is a variation or "mutation" as some say. Clearly there is nothing random about it.

You've trotted out that illustration before and nobody's raised their hand and pointed out how lousy it is?

Firstly, that is just a picture of a bunch of women generalized into their country of origin, only one representing each. It's completely meaningless scientifically, apart from being mildly diverting for about 20 seconds. How did they go about picking these people? Why is the sample size so small? How did they determine these people as particular to the looks of these countries? Did they check birth certificates to verify their nationalities or just take people at their word?

Does the Eurovision song contest of 2011 mean that everybody in Azerbaijan is a great singer?

Use of bold really doesn't make an argument any more persuasive; just as when news commentators decide to yell their point (looking at you Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly) it doesn't make them any more right, except to the simple-minded and gullible, or those easily scared.

Putting aside the obvious flaws of that picture as evidence for well, anything; there is considerable variation among those faces in terms of features of skull shape, sizes and dimensions of the facial appendages all of which may be passed on from parents or prior generations, or a few of which might be particular to just that person and introduced as a random genetic mutation.

What exactly are you trying to point out?

 

[Zaius137]

You've trotted out that illustration before and nobody's raised their hand and pointed out how lousy it is?

Firstly, that is just a picture of a bunch of women generalized into their country of origin, only one representing each. It's completely meaningless scientifically, apart from being mildly diverting for about 20 seconds. How did they go about picking these people? Why is the sample size so small? How did they determine these people as particular to the looks of these countries? Did they check birth certificates to verify their nationalities or just take people at their word?

Does the Eurovision song contest of 2011 mean that everybody in Azerbaijan is a great singer?

Use of bold really doesn't make an argument any more persuasive; just as when news commentators decide to yell their point (looking at you Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly) it doesn't make them any more right, except to the simple-minded and gullible, or those easily scared.

Putting aside the obvious flaws of that picture as evidence for well, anything; there is considerable variation among those faces in terms of features of skull shape, sizes and dimensions of the facial appendages all of which may be passed on from parents or prior generations, or a few of which might be particular to just that person and introduced as a random genetic mutation.

What exactly are you trying to point out?

Do you know in terms of effective population as defined in genetics that the &#8220;N&#8221; is only 10,000 for humans today, demonstrating actually little polymorphic differences in humankind? Evolutionists make up hundreds if not thousands of bottlenecks to explain this; but it is not verifiable in the fossil record. As Christians, we know the bottleneck as Noah&#8217;s flood.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think I agree with your statement…

No one can be argued into the belief in God; if they are, they can be argued out of that belief. I know that that the Holy Spirit is the only mechanism for someone to accept Jesus; it is a mystery to me.

Q: How many Holy Spirits does it take to fill a 1 liter beaker?

A: The number varies.

 

[mkatzwork]

Do you know in terms of effective population as defined in genetics that the “N” is only 10,000 for humans today, demonstrating actually little polymorphic differences in humankind? Evolutionists make up hundreds if not thousands of bottlenecks to explain this; but it is not verifiable in the fossil record. As Christians, we know the bottleneck as Noah’s flood.

Good try. I'm very familiar with the beta-globin work from the 1970's, thankfully, but like most people who are, there is nothing especially new about this or anything for evolutionists to fear, as much as you might like there to be as it would support your entirely un-evidenced global flood nonsense.

Do you think that our relatively low polymorphic variance is somehow an unsolvable problem we're quaking in our boots about? Have you read Premo and Hublin's work, just as a starter? It's nice that you've read enough to know about polymorphism and genetic divergence but the problem I have is the point at which you chose to stop reading and studying and start believing without evidence.

Your only evidence that Noah's Flood was indeed Noah's Flood and not Allah taking an overfilled bath is the Bible. Since you're clearly intelligent, why do you not hold the (at best) translation of a copy of a copy written by some mystics in a very hot desert hundreds of years ago to the same standard of evidence as you demand from science?

There may have been a particular bottleneck in the past that wiped out a significant portion of the human population in one big go, but the biblical authors would have been on better ground if they'd picked a supervolcano as the divine demolition mode du jour... "God brought up liquid fire from the earth that consumed man and beast alike" for example....

Noah could have run up the tallest mountain under God's instruction and been followed by two of every beast of the field etc. etc. and that would have been ever so much more plausible...creationists would have leapt on Toba so very eagerly. Surely the divine being would have realized this was a better choice than a global flood that is full of logical inconsistencies?

 

[mkatzwork]

Not to mention the fact that the illustration you used above is still about as unscientific as you could possibly hope to find, if you were hoping to demonstrate that...if the full field of genetic science is a lavish five course dinner of great sophistication and complexity, you just tried to demonstrate it by showing a McNugget.

 

[SkyWriting]

You've trotted out that illustration before and nobody's raised their hand and pointed out how lousy it is?

Firstly, that is just a picture of a bunch of women generalized into their country of origin, only one representing each.... <snip>What exactly are you trying to point out?

Clearly all the "randomness" in these faces is being guided and is not random at all.
This is what those faces would look like if random mutations were actually random:

 

[Davian]

I'll repeat this illustration again. My apologies to those who'd read it.

Look at every persons face in the world. Each one is a variation or "mutation" as some say. Clearly there is nothing random about it.

If this is so clear to you, how would you explain the apparently random differences between siblings for children born of the same parents? And what would you propose that the mechanism for that would be, if not mutation? Does not the DNA measurably differ between parents/offspring/siblings?

 

[mkatzwork]

Clearly all the "randomness" in these faces is being guided and is not random at all.
This is what those faces would look like if random mutations were actually random:

No, they wouldn't (although people are born that are arguably that deformed facially, albeit in different ways). What you have there is a straw man, not reductio ad absurdum.

Your assertion would be true if genetics was a massive lottery, as each possible gene or chromosome comes up on the middle line and you end up with your winning number, with equal chance for any gene to come up any way.

It's just not, that's a colossal misunderstanding. I can say with certainty now, you do NOT understand this yet (but you're clearly intelligent so there is hope!).

The colossal majority of genetic information is passed from the parents, with the occasional variation. These variations aren't things like "this person will look like a deformed monster X" or "this person will be 27 feet tall", they are small individual variations, for example, eye color. If it was a completely unfixed and random lottery where X and Y didn't matter, yes, someone could have a child that looked like your monster thing above, but then the issue would be that it would NOT survive long because major genetic abnormalities often come with a greater susceptibility to disease.

Ironically your picture of the faces quite a good demonstration against your own point. The differences in these people show the kind of small, random mutations that occur in our species quite nicely, although because these people aren't closely related it's a limited demonstration that could be better done in other ways. There's no guidance by an unseen master going on here. If there was, he's playing a pretty sadistic joke by throwing genetic conditions like Downs Syndrome deliberately into the mix, no?

 

[Jazer]

Look at every persons face in the world. Each one is a variation or "mutation" as some say. Clearly there is nothing random about it.

Beauty is determined by the Golden Ratio.
That has been around even before there was life.
If you look at the spiral you see the Golden Ratio.

 

[mkatzwork]

Nice picture of M101. It's not such a great example as it's actually slightly asymmetrical, likely due to a collision with another galaxy in the past. M51 is closer to the ratio mathematically. The Golden Ratio does seem to have aesthetically pleasing characteristics to the human mind but the concept of a ratio didn't exist before humans, so to say beauty (also a concept invented by humans) is determined by it is possibly a hair premature.

Beauty is determined by the Golden Ratio.
That has been around even before there was life.
If you look at the spiral you see the Golden Ratio.

 

[NailsII]

I think I agree with your statement…

No one can be argued into the belief in God; if they are, they can be argued out of that belief. I know that that the Holy Spirit is the only mechanism for someone to accept Jesus; it is a mystery to me.

Not to mention the fact that the illustration you used above is still about as unscientific as you could possibly hope to find, if you were hoping to demonstrate that...if the full field of genetic science is a lavish five course dinner of great sophistication and complexity, you just tried to demonstrate it by showing a McNugget.

Awesome!
I'm soooooooooo gonna remember that one!

Clearly all the "randomness" in these faces is being guided and is not random at all.
This is what those faces would look like if random mutations were actually random:

Mutations may be random, alleles are not.

If you can discount Genesis then where do you draw a line?

You know Jesus quoted Genesis…

Yup, I know.
That's one reason why I discount the NT as well as the OT.

 

[Zaius137]

Yup, I know.
That's one reason why I discount the NT as well as the OT.

Psalm 53:1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,”
They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice;
There is no one who does good.

Sorry my friend if you resemble this saying so the saying you are.