Challenge for YECs: What are the roles of population and species in evolution?

[AnotherAtheist]

Yes, the percentage based on comparisons of base pair alike a different is exactly what this is all about. I don't care what you think or how you feel, when you start insisting on something we both know is wrong I'm going to call you on. There is no path to further informaction because you failed at the most basic first step. Even the OP drips with condescending taunts then you choose to argue the patently false.

You aren't addressing the crux of the matter, that it's not just about counting base pair differences, it's how you choose the base pairs to match. Articles such as scientific papers I've linked to, the Smithsonian page, and even the TalkOrigins page note the different methods of measuring similarity and the different numbers that are produced. E.g. 98% similarity versus 96% similarity. Which, by the way, in no way change the degree of relationship between humans and chimps, they just measure it on a different scale.

There is no gold standard, the only way you get 98% is to pretend the indels don't exist. Now there's a reason Darwinians do this, it's because if the admit to them they have to explain how they got there without killing off the species.

If you go to google scholar and search on 'gold standard genome similarity' you will find that there is a gold standard, and the consensus is that it's DDH - DNA to DNA Hybridisation.

Estimates vary, the protein products shows gross structural divergence. 71% diverge by one code in each genome. The problem with that is the most common effect from a mutation in the reading frame is a frameshift resulting in a truncated protein. In short disease, disorder and death.

As everyone who understands evolution knows, mutations (of any sort) that lead to 'disease, disorder, and death' will be selected out of the population. Mutations (of any sort) that are neutral will not be selected against, and mutations (of any sort) that are beneficial will be selected for.

Gene expression can't account for a three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. That's one of two thing Darwinians ignore, indels and the size and complexity of the human brain.

This is not relevant to the current discussion because we're talking about genetic similarity. Even if it was, a simple check of the literature shows that you are wrong. E.g. Genetic Changes Shaping the Human Brain No one, especially 'Darwinians' as you label them, is ignoring the human brain. No one, as is obvious from all sorts of references, is 'ignoring' indels. Science typically uses methods that don't count indels as a method of calculating genetic similarity because this has been found to be a better method of counting similarity of organisms.

As many times as you post the error I will respond with the correction

Except that it's your 'correction' that is wrong, a gross oversimplification, not what I write. As I have pointed out, and supported with references.

Lengthy improperly formatted quotes from my last post deleted.

Now you dismissing fossils, wow.

I am not dismissing fossils at all. I looked at the articles you linked to, ignoring the 'Answers in Genesis' link as AIG is not a reliable source, and noted that they mentioned chimpanzee like features. I then pointed out that this is not unexpected given that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps was likely very chimp-like, so early species on the human lineage would be expected to have chimp-like features. As I pointed out does not mean that those fossils have been attributed to the wrong lineage. That is not dismissing fossils. It's dismissing an incorrect interpretation of those fossils, which is an entirely different thing.

Please address my argument as stated; please do not wildly mis-characterise it.

 

[mark kennedy]

You aren't addressing the crux of the matter, that it's not just about counting base pair differences, it's how you choose the base pairs to match. Articles such as scientific papers I've linked to, the Smithsonian page, and even the TalkOrigins page note the different methods of measuring similarity and the different numbers that are produced. E.g. 98% similarity versus 96% similarity. Which, by the way, in no way change the degree of relationship between humans and chimps, they just measure it on a different scale.

No your denying the obviou



If you go to google scholar and search on 'gold standard genome similarity' you will find that there is a gold standard, and the consensus is that it's DDH - DNA to DNA Hybridisation.[/quote]

Your talking about methodogy, I'm talking about what the ratio is based on and it's always in base pairs. Don't bother with links if you are going to mislead on the basic I'm not interested in anything you have to say about details.

As everyone who understands evolution knows, mutations (of any sort) that lead to 'disease, disorder, and death' will be selected out of the population. Mutations (of any sort) that are neutral will not be selected against, and mutations (of any sort) that are beneficial will be selected for.

No selection does not eliminate mutations that lead to death disease and disorder. Either the mutation is repaired in the G2 S phase of the cell cycle or another molecular repair mecanism like recombination has to screen it. Selective constraint is the only kind of selection and according the chimpanzee consortium natural selection had nothing to do with the evolution of our genes. Your not arguing science your parroting Darwinian fallacies.

9This is not relevant to the current discussion because we're talking about genetic similarity. Even if it was, a simple check of the literature shows that you are wrong. E.g. Genetic Changes Shaping the Human Brain No one, especially 'Darwinians' as you label them, is ignoring the human brain. No one, as is obvious from all sorts of references, is 'ignoring' indels. Science typically uses methods that don't count indels as a method of calculating genetic similarity because this has been found to be a better method of counting similarity of organisms.

What we are discussing is genome sequence identity, measured in base pairs, and the true extent and implications of the divergence.

Except that it's your 'correction' that is wrong, a gross oversimplification, not what I write. As I have pointed out, and supported with references.

No, I always have a base line to check the comprehension and or candor, on a pass or fail basis. It is nessacarily true or false. You failed, you are denying the most basic fact of comparative genomics. I do that because I expect this, I know before you are going to try to correct obvious fact with equally obvious error. This way I know where your going with this.

I am not dismissing fossils at all. I looked at the articles you linked to, ignoring the 'Answers in Genesis' link as AIG is not a reliable source, and noted that they mentioned chimpanzee like features. I then pointed out that this is not unexpected given that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps was likely very chimp-like, so early species on the human lineage would be expected to have chimp-like features. As I pointed out does not mean that those fossils have been attributed to the wrong lineage. That is not dismissing fossils. It's dismissing an incorrect interpretation of those fossils, which is an entirely different thing.

There isn't a lot to interpret. Every chimanze they dig up in Africa is automatically one of our ancestors. That's why there are no chimpanzees ancestors in the fossil record. It also accounts for the fact that the only transitional is between chimpanzee and gorillas.

Please address my argument as stated; please do not wildly mis-characterise it.

When you honestly admit the obvious the conversation can move forward

 

[DogmaHunter]

You seem to be surprised by the notion that someone can understand a concept and still reject it. I've met plenty of atheists around here that understand the content of the Bible very well, even better than many Christians, yet reject the whole concept of God. I'm sure that flat Earth proponents grasp the concept of a round object too.

In my experience, creationists who actually really understand what evolution theory is all about, are a clear minority.

Which is why 99% of their "arguments" consist simply out of stabs to a strawman version of biology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

no. the suppose evidence is a series of fossils. but we can also arrange vehicles in order. it doesnt prove a common descent even if they w ere able to reproduce like a living thing:

View attachment 215870

The difference is that you just pulled that graph out of your pocket. It was not the result of actual data mapping.

Because, for the upteenth time, if you actually compare vehicles and plot their similarities on a graph, it will NOT result in a nested hierarchy. At all.

But living things, do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

again: the same with a car and a truck. both are very similar inside and outside. but again: it doesnt prove any common descent.

Because the pattern of similarities in cars is not a nested hierarchy.
But it is with living things.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so you dont think that a car is more similar to a van then to a truck in many traits?

FYI: the graph that you invented out of thin air, does not agree with the idea that a car is "more similar" to a van then to a truck.

So congratz, you even managed to draw the wrong conclusion derived from your very own imaginary data...

i dont think that anyone ever check the entire parts of a truck compare with a car or a van. but we can clearly see that a car is more similar to a van then to a truck.

Then why are you posting a graph which suggests that a car is just as (dis)similar to a van as it is to a truck?

 

[Michael]

In my experience, creationists who actually really understand what evolution theory is all about, are a clear minority.

Which is why 99% of their "arguments" consist simply out of stabs to a strawman version of biology.

I hear you. I have the same experience with EU/PC haters, but every once in a blue moon I run into someone who at least understands the basic concepts. Admittedly they are few and far between however, certainly the exception rather than the rule.

I have the same experience with creationists and biology too. Even still, it's interesting and rather fascinating to run into someone who actually grasps the concepts pretty well and still rejects the idea. Flat Earther's in particular seem like a really odd duck in that respect, though I personally can't recall talking to any of them at length, or quizzing any of them over the basics of solar system mechanics before.

Over the years however I have run into quite a few creationists that at least seem to have a "reasonable" grasp of evolutionary theory and biology. It's certainly a minority of course, but it does happen. I wouldn't say they were necessarily "experts" in EV theory or biology, but they at least seem to understand the basics. I always find that mindset to be rather fascinating, particularly the rationalizations that tend to go along with it.

 

[SelfSim]

I hear you. I have the same experience with EU/PC haters, but every once in a blue moon I run into someone who at least understands the basic concepts. Admittedly they are few and far between however, certainly the exception rather than the rule.

Of those you refer to as 'EU/PC haters', it seems that it is only you who somehow sees fit to label these people as 'EU/PC haters'. In fact, your most recent tirades elsewhere, only serves as evidence for exposing the true source of 'hatred' as being your own contempt for folk who actually have a deeper understanding of the physics behind the 'EU/PC concepts' than yourself .. and you just don't like that.

 

[Michael]

Of those you refer to as 'EU/PC haters', it seems that it is only you who somehow sees fit to label these people as 'EU/PC haters'. In fact, your most recent tirades elsewhere, only serves as evidence for exposing the true source of 'hatred' as being your own contempt for folk who actually have a deeper understanding of the physics behind the 'EU/PC concepts' than yourself .. and you just don't like that.

You're a perfect case in point, and a perfect example of someone that *thinks* that they have some understanding of EU/PC theory yet has almost none. Anyone that had any understanding at all of EU/PC theory would have corrected that absurd nonsense about EU/PC solar models predicting "no neutrinos" *years* ago, but none of you have done so in over three years. That says volumes about your lack of understanding and your use of strawmen, and even *false statements* as arguments.

I'd bet money that none of you have ever bothered to read Anthony Peratt's book "Physics of the Plasma Universe" on the topic of EU/PC theory which explains why the haters are always erroneously claiming that there is no math to support the concept. There are computer models to support the concept!

You don't have a "deeper understanding" of the topic of EU/PC theory, in fact you have little or no understanding at all. The fact you even think that you have some "deeper" understanding of EU/PC theory is entirely *laughable* after all the complete nonsense that I've seen you folks post on that topic. It's just sad and pathetic that you even think that you "understand" anything at all!

What I don't like is the strawman arguments and flat out deception from EU/PC haters, including the obvious self deception about your supposed "deeper understanding". Man, that's just absolutely ridiculous self deception after all the utter nonsense that I've seen you folks post about EU/PC theory. Have you even personally read Birkeland's book or Alfven's book or Peratt's book for yourself yet? If so, which one(s)?

You argue against EU/PC theory the way that a clueless creationist who's never read a single textbook on biology in their entire life argues against evolutionary theory.

 

[jacks]

As soon as I figure out what EU/PC stands for, I plan to get all worked up about it too!

 

[AV1611VET]

As soon as I figure out what EU/PC stands for, I plan to get all worked up about it too!

LOL -- that's a good one!

 

[Michael]

As soon as I figure out what EU/PC stands for, I plan to get all worked up about it too!

FYI, EU/PC stands for "Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology" theory.

Go for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

FYI, EU/PC stands for "Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology" theory.

Go for it.

NOW I'm worked up!

 

[Michael]

NOW I'm worked up!

Now all you have to do is claim (or defend the claim) that magnetic reconnection happens between magnetic "lines", without plasma or any plasma particle acceleration, in a null point, and claim or defend the claim that EU/PC solar models predict the sun to emit "no neutrinos" and you'll be qualified to join the clueless EU/PC hater posse.

If you want to move up the ranks however, you'll have to also claim that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now all you have to do is claim (or defend the claim) that magnetic reconnection happens between magnetic "lines", without plasma or any plasma particle acceleration, in a null point, and claim or defend the claim that EU/PC solar models predict the sun to emit "no neutrinos" and you'll be qualified to join the clueless EU/PC hater posse.

If you want to move up the ranks however, you'll have to also claim that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma.

Um ... uh ... well ...

I like anchovies on my pizza.

Does that count for anything?

 

[pitabread]

Selective constraint is the only kind of selection and according the chimpanzee consortium natural selection had nothing to do with the evolution of our genes.

Got a citation for this?

 

[Michael]

Um ... uh ... well ...

I like anchovies on my pizza.

Does that count for anything?

Only if they're invisible, aka "dark" anchovies that cause you to gain "dark" weight and cause the pizza to expand and accelerate into infinity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only if they're invisible, aka "dark" anchovies that cause you to gain "dark" weight and cause the pizza to expand and accelerate into infinity.

It won't expand fast enough.

Not the way I eat!

 

[SelfSim]

You're a perfect case in point, and a perfect example of someone that *thinks* that they have some understanding of EU/PC theory yet has almost none. Anyone that had any understanding at all of EU/PC theory would have corrected that absurd nonsense about EU/PC solar models predicting "no neutrinos" *years* ago, but none of you have done so in over three years. That says volumes about your lack of understanding and your use of strawmen, and even *false statements* as arguments.

I'd bet money that none of you have ever bothered to read Anthony Peratt's book "Physics of the Plasma Universe" on the topic of EU/PC theory which explains why the haters are always erroneously claiming that there is no math to support the concept. There are computer models to support the concept!

You don't have a "deeper understanding" of the topic of EU/PC theory, in fact you have little or no understanding at all. The fact you even think that you have some "deeper" understanding of EU/PC theory is entirely *laughable* after all the complete nonsense that I've seen you folks post on that topic. It's just sad and pathetic that you even think that you "understand" anything at all!

What I don't like is the strawman arguments and flat out deception from EU/PC haters, including the obvious self deception about your supposed "deeper understanding". Man, that's just absolutely ridiculous self deception after all the utter nonsense that I've seen you folks post about EU/PC theory. Have you even personally read Birkeland's book or Alfven's book or Peratt's book for yourself yet? If so, which one(s)?

You argue against EU/PC theory the way that a clueless creationist who's never read a single textbook on biology in their entire life argues against evolutionary theory.

There is nothing to argue because there is no such thing as 'EU/PC theory'!
Given that you'll disagree with this statement (and bore us all to tears in the process of your attempted hijacking of this thread), please present us with the papers (in another thread) in which you and your companions clearly explain the 'EU/PC theory', its accompanying models, the observations, including the math. Oh and don't forget to disclose that Peratt outright rejects the 'EU' nonsense when raised in the context of his 'Plasma Cosmology' - (ie: 'PC').

Taking a quote from your sordid history of past transgressions against other web folk:
“Mr. Mozina seems to treat the facts of Nature and Science as if they are something that can be negotiated or traded around like debate points. Nature does not plea bargain.”
- T.Bridgman.

Oh, and I'll just add the following to complete my posts on this thread and let others make their own judgments on the nature of your character and my assertions concerning your own hatred projected onto others (link here):

That's the kind of cowardly and dishonest behavior that I'm referring to. It's obnoxious, unethical and unprofessional nonsense. Selfsim has no honor, no courage and no ethics whatsoever. That's also true of Reality Check. They don't care who the slander, or who they publicly attack because they're cowardly haters hiding behind an anonymous handle.

PS: Oh .. and here is my reponse from the past to Michael's other accusations of my not supporting my claims about Donald Scott's nonsense paper ...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Um ... uh ... well ...

I like anchovies on my pizza.

Does that count for anything?

Could be a sign of what I'd call good taste, could be a sign of what I'd call bad taste. It all depends what else is on the pizza.