Theistic evolutionists: was Adam a specific person?

[sfs]

Of course. But majority of them died off and ONLY ONE made it to modern human. Any way you look at it, it is still just ONE, not many.

You say, "Of course", and then follow it with something that is completely wrong.
Only one what made it into modern humans? Hundreds (more likely thousands) of individual mutations in hundreds or thousands of individual ancestors made it into modern humans. We carry DNA from many members of the ancestral population.

Further, I would assume ALL mutations are slightly different from each other. Right? So, there would be only ONE correct mutation which progressed into human. No matter how big was the population at the beginning.

Mutations are changes to DNA. Millions of mutations from that ancestral population progressed into modern humans.

 

[Split Rock]

All the animals were on the ark, and not eating each other. From there, we got all the species we now know. That means probably most evolving in the fossil record, after the KT layer, happened in a few hundred years. That is very different.

It is also impossible.

Noah lived many many centuries. Very very different. Noah found a tree growing days or weeks from the time there was no plant life. That is fast. That is different. It is not a stretch to think how fast growing little creatures or bacteria like thingies could decompose a body real fast, or some facet of the nature of that day. Not at all.

You do nothing but stretch both reality and the words of the Bible. All to fit with your "non-PO past state" nonsense.

No excuse for being lost and confused in the fossil record any longer.

Why? Because you are here to "straighten" us all out?

The religious methodology referred to obviously was so called science. As for your closet beliefs other than that, not interested. I can tell more by words one speaks.

Yes and your words are all gibberish.

 

[juvenissun]

No. A number of different mutations can all result in a similar effect. There is no "one correct" mutation necessary. For example, there are a number of mutations that can change an acidic amino acid into a hydrophobic amino acid.

Yes. But, even you combined some of the mutations into one (same effect), there would still be thousands of different ones came from an evolving group. They would lead to different effects.

 

[Split Rock]

You say, "Of course", and then follow it with something that is completely wrong.
Only one what made it into modern humans? Hundreds (more likely thousands) of individual mutations in hundreds or thousands of individual ancestors made it into modern humans. We carry DNA from many members of the ancestral population.


Mutations are changes to DNA. Millions of mutations from that ancestral population progressed into modern humans.

I think Juvie was thinking of the adaptive mutations, and that they were all specifically required for the evolution of humans.

 

[juvenissun]

You say, "Of course", and then follow it with something that is completely wrong.
Only one what made it into modern humans? Hundreds (more likely thousands) of individual mutations in hundreds or thousands of individual ancestors made it into modern humans. We carry DNA from many members of the ancestral population.


Mutations are changes to DNA. Millions of mutations from that ancestral population progressed into modern humans.

Mutation is a divergent process. But it leads to a convergent effect and product. This does not sound right to me.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes. But, even you combined some of the mutations into one (same effect), there would still be thousands of different ones came from an evolving group. They would lead to different effects.

Well yes... the human population today has a great deal of variation (thus different effects). Some mutations become fixed in a population, however, while others do not.

In population genetics, fixation is the change in a gene pool from a situation where there exists at least two variants of a particular gene (allele) to a situation where only one of the alleles remains.[1] In the absence of mutation, any allele must eventually be lost completely from the population or fixed (permanently established in the population).[2] Whether a gene will ultimately be lost or fixed is dependent on selection coefficients and chance fluctuations in allelic proportions.[3] Fixation can refer to a gene in general or particular nucleotide position in the DNA chain (locus).
Fixation (population genetics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Split Rock]

Mutation is a divergent process. But it leads to a convergent effect and product. This does not sound right to me.

That is because you are ignoring the effects of natural selection on those mutations.

Mutations produce variants. Natural selection (and other mechanisms) choose from those variants. Some are retained or increased in frequency and others are lost.

 

[Papias]

Juvie wrote:

If so, we should have many human species at earlier time and gradually merged(?) into one (why?). Is that right?

Juvie-

This has all been explained to you. Multiple times. I have to start to wonder if you are simply trying to get people to write long explanations with no intention of reading them.

I've asked several times for any evidence that you read and understood post #70, which went into great detail for you. I've seen that you have ignored these requests, and still post nonsensical statements.

Can you offer anything else?

Thanks-

Papias

 

[crjmurray]

Juvie wrote:





Juvie-

This has all been explained to you. Multiple times. I have to start to wonder if you are simply trying to get people to write long explanations with no intention of reading them.

I've asked several times for any evidence that you read and understood post #70, which went into great detail for you. I've seen that you have ignored these requests, and still post nonsensical statements.

Can you offer anything else?

Thanks-

Papias

He's just screwing with them.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Of course. But majority of them died off and ONLY ONE made it to modern human. Any way you look at it, it is still just ONE, not many.

This doesn't make sense. Every generation has a 100 per cent death rate, and the following generation(s) carries on.

Further, I would assume ALL mutations are slightly different from each other. Right? So, there would be only ONE correct mutation which progressed into human. No matter how big was the population at the beginning.

MANY "correct" mutations progressed into making us human.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Mutation is a divergent process. But it leads to a convergent effect and product. This does not sound right to me.

Yet another portrayal of evolution as mutation alone, neglecting the working together of mutation and natural selection. Creationists are always pulling this trick.

 

[justlookinla]

Yet another portrayal of evolution as mutation alone, neglecting the working together of mutation and natural selection. Creationists are always pulling this trick.

Natural selection only impacts life forms which already exist, natural selection does not create new life forms.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Natural selection only impacts life forms which already exist, natural selection does not create new life forms.

Mutation plus natural selection cause new life forms to branch off from existing life forms.

Remember to always put the two together. "Mutation with natural selection". Don't try to pull the old creationist trick of only naming one and claiming it is clearly inadequate.

 

[justlookinla]

Mutation plus natural selection cause new life forms to branch off from existing life forms.

Remember to always put the two together. "Mutation with natural selection". Don't try to pull the old creationist trick of only naming one and claiming it is clearly inadequate.

The naming of the one, mutation, is simply recognizing the view that only mutation produces new life forms, not natural selection.

 

[dad]

It is also impossible.

Today, yes, of course. So?

You do nothing but stretch both reality and the words of the Bible. All to fit with your "non-PO past state" nonsense.

It is a no brainer that a different past existed if the bible is true, in Noah's day. All that gets bent, folded and mutilated is the claims based on the unproven imaginary same state past.

 

[sfs]

Mutation plus natural selection cause new life forms to branch off from existing life forms.

Remember to always put the two together. "Mutation with natural selection". Don't try to pull the old creationist trick of only naming one and claiming it is clearly inadequate.

In fact, you don't even need natural selection. All you need is that some mutations will increase in frequency over time, which happens by chance even when no selection is occurring ("genetic drift"). That's undoubtedly why most of the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are there.

 

[juvenissun]

Yet another portrayal of evolution as mutation alone, neglecting the working together of mutation and natural selection. Creationists are always pulling this trick.

It is trivial. The effect of mutation has to be suppressed by natural environment. This should be taken as a built-in function of mutation. No one is playing trick.

So, if there were 1000 mutations, it might ended up with 1 successor, not "large population".

 

[sfs]

It is trivial. The effect of mutation has to be suppressed by natural environment. This should be taken as a built-in function of mutation. No one is playing trick.

So, if there were 1000 mutations, it might ended up with 1 successor, not "large population".

I'm sorry, but your statements here seem to me to be literally meaningless.

 

[juvenissun]

In fact, you don't even need natural selection. All you need is that some mutations will increase in frequency over time, which happens by chance even when no selection is occurring ("genetic drift"). That's undoubtedly why most of the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are there.

Why would that happen? Is mutation supposed to be random under any condition? If A mutated one way, why should B mutated the same way (or have a better chance to mutate the same way)? Would that have a very very small chance?

 

[juvenissun]

I'm sorry, but your statements here seem to me to be literally meaningless.

If so, please correct it so it means something.