Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[DogmaHunter]

Please show me any family tree that begins with more than two? You can’t.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

Here's a family tree that "begins with just two".

Tell me: where did Diana come from? Or Kate Middleton?
Do the genes from Harry and William come exclusively from Elisabeth II and Phillip?
Or do they have an entire tree of ancestry in the lineage of Diana as well?

Seriously, the simplicitly by which you approach this is even dumb for a 10-year old.

No, human population doesn't have a single breeding pair at its root. It just doesn't.

So we trace Joes parents back, and Paul’s parents, and however far back you want to extend it, it ends up in two.

It doesn't. Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve lived thousands of years apart.

Yes, I know in your magic world thousands of humans just popped into existence.

No, that's your view of magical creation.
In reality, human development was a very gradual process that took many many generations. There's no "popping" anywhere down that line.

Yes, I know. In your magic world thousands just popped into existence.

No, that's your creationist view again.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, I know. In your magic world thousands of humans just popped into existence.

And what LUCA? Every single one is missing on every single tree where you require linkage to anything else. Human or otherwise.

Is this where we go into imagination because you lack every single one that bridges every single imaginary gap?

No, it's where we go into genetics and nested hierarchical trees.

And indeed, we have no examples of the microscopic life forms that existed some 3.8 billion years ago.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

View attachment 231982

Here's a family tree that "begins with just two".

Tell me: where did Diana come from? Or Kate Middleton?
Do the genes from Harry and William come exclusively from Elisabeth II and Phillip?
Or do they have an entire tree of ancestry in the lineage of Diana as well?

Seriously, the simplicitly by which you approach this is even dumb for a 10-year old.

No, human population doesn't have a single breeding pair at its root. It just doesn't.



It doesn't. Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve lived thousands of years apart.



No, that's your view of magical creation.
In reality, human development was a very gradual process that took many many generations. There's no "popping" anywhere down that line.



No, that's your creationist view again.

And go ahead, keep tracing every single person backwards, until there are fewer and fewer and fewer and then two.

You can’t get around it except by proposing thousands popping into existence at once. And we all know the odds against just one.....

 

[pitabread]

In reality, human development was a very gradual process that took many many generations. There's no "popping" anywhere down that line.

This speaks to the difficulty some people have when conceptualizing how population genetics works.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This speaks to the difficulty some people have when conceptualizing how population genetics works.

No, it speaks of trying to avoid reality.

If there is a large population, it is impossible for a mutation to become fixed in the general population.

If you develop a mutation, only your descendants have this mutation. The rest of the population would be unaffected.

The entire population must come from one area, and the same family.

 

[pitabread]

If there is a large population, it is impossible for a mutation to become fixed in the general population.

Not so. The size of the population will effect time-to-fixation more than anything else.

If you develop a mutation, only your descendants have this mutation. The rest of the population would be unaffected.

The entire population must come from one area, and the same family.

If a mutation occurs in a single individual and it becomes fixed in a population, then yes that mutation will be able to be traced back through the generations to that single individual.

This doesn't mean, however, that that individual at the time of mutation was the only member of the population in existence. In the same manner that a single mutation can spread through a population, other lineages within that same population can go 'extinct' (i.e. those lines of descent effectively stop at a point in time).

All of that can occur within a population over time even when the size of the population doesn't change.

 

[Brightmoon]

Justatruthseeker your names ironic as you’re being told the truth and you’re too hardheaded to accept it. Pseudoscience nonsense fantasies arent how humans came to be . We evolved from another species and they evolved from another species and so on and so on. 3.8 billion years ago that ancestor species was unicellular.

 

[Brightmoon]

In small populations a beneficial genetic change that causes offspring to survive better will lead to those particular individuals increasing in number even if the entire population does get larger. This is what happened with the melanistic (dark)peppered moth which didn’t exist before the industrial revolution of the 1800s . A random genetic change enabled that dark moth’s offspring to survive predation against a dark background (due to pollution) . Any moth that then inherited that trait was able to leave more offspring. By the 1940s it was difficult to find a light colored one even though the light colored one was the basic population. Since the early 70s, the pollution is staining fewer trees dark and the dark colored populations are disappearing. Nature evolved these moths to survive in a changed environment. It didn’t have to be that way , they could have just gone extinct. Every species is like this , it either changes in response to environmental pressure or to take advantage of a benefit . There’s no way to stop this process unless the species goes extinct.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, it speaks of trying to avoid reality.

If there is a large population, it is impossible for a mutation to become fixed in the general population.

-_- why are you assuming that "more than two" means that the population was large? There is solid evidence that human ancestors experienced numerous genetic bottlenecks.

If you develop a mutation, only your descendants have this mutation. The rest of the population would be unaffected.

Well, yes, and after hundreds of generations, that number of affected individuals can be very, very numerous. If you go back 35 generations, you are almost guaranteed to share at least one ancestor with ME. Given that human generations are considered to be around 20 years long, that means we likely share an ancestor from the 14th century. Sure, I only have 2 parents, but I have 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 great great grandparents, 32 triple greats, and so on.

However, it would be incorrect to say that all humans have the same genetic variability. We simply don't. There are people on this planet that inherited benign genes that originated over 700 years ago, and you didn't inherit that gene because you didn't share that particular ancestor with them. Hence why certain traits are associated with certain smaller populations of humans and not humanity as a whole. Since humans existed in many different environments and didn't just stick to one, natural selection would select for different traits as a result, increasing regional differences.

The entire population must come from one area, and the same family.

Nah, humans are notoriously nomadic and will sleep with just about anything, even if they don't speak the same language.

 

[PsychoSarah]

In small populations a beneficial genetic change that causes offspring to survive better will lead to those particular individuals increasing in number even if the entire population does get larger. This is what happened with the melanistic (dark)peppered moth which didn’t exist before the industrial revolution of the 1800s .

I am pretty sure that the dark coloration allele predated the Industrial revolution and that this color was just extremely rare in the population until the pollution gave them an advantage.

 

[Brightmoon]

I am pretty sure that the dark coloration allele predated the Industrial revolution and that this color was just extremely rare in the population until the pollution gave them an advantage.

they have moth and butterfly collections from the early 18 century and there were no dark Peppered moths .a dark moth would have been prized by a collector. It’s a somewhat recent mutation

 

[PsychoSarah]

they have moth and butterfly collections from the early 18 century and there were no dark Peppered moths .a dark moth would have been prized by a collector. It’s a somewhat recent mutation

Fair enough, the dark color wasn't known to exist until 1811. My bad.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And go ahead, keep tracing every single person backwards, until there are fewer and fewer and fewer and then two.

Nope. Genetics show that human population never dropped under a few thousands individuals.

Populations evolve. Not individuals. And genesis is a religious myth

You can’t get around it except by proposing thousands popping into existence at once.

Nope. Evolution is a gradual process that takes many generations. At no point is there any popping.

And we all know the odds against just one.....

Yes, the odds of your deity popping humans into existance are rather low.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, it speaks of trying to avoid reality.

Says the person who avoids reality like population genetics, evolution, lack of genetic bottlenecks,...

If there is a large population, it is impossible for a mutation to become fixed in the general population.

LOL!

There's that failure of understanding population genetics again...

If you develop a mutation, only your descendants have this mutation. The rest of the population would be unaffected.

Which is why it takes many generations before a mutation spreads throughout the population and achieves fixation.

And again, it seems you are completely oblivious to the fact that it takes TWO individuals to procreate and that each of these individuals have their own ancestry.

If A has a mutation and procreates with B, the off spring, let's call it AB1, might inherit said mutation.

That off spring is not just the off spring of A, but also of B.

Next, AB1 procreates with XY1, the child of X and Y and produces off spring ABXY.
ABXY inherits said mutation.

ABXY has an ancestry in A, B, X and Y.

If you inherit something from your mother, your father lineage doesn't disappear.

The entire population must come from one area, and the same family.

No.


I suggest you read up a bit on population genetics, because it sounds like you don't have a clue.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Yes, I know. In your magic world thousands of humans just popped into existence.

Not me who believes in magic. It was thousands of hominids, maybe they weren't anatomically modern humans just yet...

And what LUCA? Every single one is missing on every single tree where you require linkage to anything else. Human or otherwise.

Not sure, you'll probably be best asking a biologist, or similar, that's not my field of study. The Genetic evidence is more than enough, the divergent tree of life indicates it as the best explanation, and the fossil record is also testament to this. These are just a few of the many reasons why evolution is literally the only scientific proposition for the diversity of life we see today, even if we didn't have all the transitional fossils you wish we didn't

Is this where we go into imagination because you lack every single one that bridges every single imaginary gap?

I don't share your ignorance of the facts and evidence. There's simply too much for a rational person to ignore.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

And go ahead, keep tracing every single person backwards, until there are fewer and fewer and fewer and then two.

You can’t get around it except by proposing thousands popping into existence at once. And we all know the odds against just one.....

Sure we can. We can go back and find that humans came from a population of hominids, we can trace them back to see they came from a population of Apes, we can trace them back to see that they came from a population of simians, we can trace them back to see they came from a population of haplorhinis, we can trace them back to see they came from a population of mammals, etc. All the way back to where we came from single-celled eukaryotes.

None of this is a mystery to anyone who makes the effort to learn about it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

None of this is a mystery to anyone who makes the effort to learn about it.

Nore does any of it require things "popping" into existance, magic or violation/suspension of natural laws.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not so. The size of the population will effect time-to-fixation more than anything else.

You don’t believe that any more than I do.

We both know that if you had a beneficial mutation right now, it would never become fixed in the population of 7+ billion and rising no matter how many trillions of years I give you. Not unless almost the entire population is wiped out and your descendants become the population. Your double-talk tactics don’t work here.

If a mutation occurs in a single individual and it becomes fixed in a population, then yes that mutation will be able to be traced back through the generations to that single individual.

This doesn't mean, however, that that individual at the time of mutation was the only member of the population in existence. In the same manner that a single mutation can spread through a population, other lineages within that same population can go 'extinct' (i.e. those lines of descent effectively stop at a point in time).

All of that can occur within a population over time even when the size of the population doesn't change.

And if you trace the rest of the population back through time, you eventually come to two. There’s no escaping it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not me who believes in magic. It was thousands of hominids, maybe they weren't anatomically modern humans just yet...

Not sure, you'll probably be best asking a biologist, or similar, that's not my field of study. The Genetic evidence is more than enough, the divergent tree of life indicates it as the best explanation, and the fossil record is also testament to this. These are just a few of the many reasons why evolution is literally the only scientific proposition for the diversity of life we see today, even if we didn't have all the transitional fossils you wish we didn't

I don't share your ignorance of the facts and evidence. There's simply too much for a rational person to ignore.

The fossil record testified against the theory of evolution.

Every single fossil for any creature found remains the same from the oldest to youngest fossil found for that type of creature.

There is not a single shred of evidence for change of any kind. It is those common ancestors you claim link the forms that are every single one missing on every single tree. The entire theory rests on not one spec of evidence. It’s entire basis rests on common ancestors linking the different forms that can’t be found for any of them.

Not a single solitary one of them.

The fossils of every single creature never change, never show signs of evolution. They always remain the same throughout their entire span of existence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The fossil record testified against the theory of evolution.

LOL

Every single fossil for any creature found remains the same from the oldest to youngest fossil found for that type of creature.

No kidding, sherlock.... fossils of the same species, are always of the same species!
Stop the presses!!!

//facepalm

There is not a single shred of evidence for change of any kind.

The entire theory rests on not one spec of evidence. It’s entire basis rests on common ancestors linking the different forms that can’t be found for any of them.

Common ancestry of species, is a genetic fact.

The fossils of every single creature never change, never show signs of evolution.
They always remain the same throughout their entire span of existence.

See above.