• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Evidence for macro-evolution

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,822
7,838
65
Massachusetts
✟391,118.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
mutations destroy a previously specified function.
Sometimes they do. Sometimes they create a new function. Ignoring that reality won't make it go away.
I suppose you could measure it by the length of the sequence required for a specific protein for example. A modest one may be hundreds of nucleotides long with a precise arrangement required to meet its function, or any function for that matter. And we can quantify the mathematic probability of such a thing ever being created by random mutation, it ain't good.
Yeah, that's wrong, too. Random mutations can be observed to generate new functions at quite a respectable rate, we can observe closely related genes with different functions and reconstruct their origin in a gene duplication event as well as the mutations that led to a new function, and we can also identify the mutations that caused nonfunctional sequence to become functional in some species.

All of which is to say that we have very good evidence that random mutations can create new genes, can generate new molecular functions for existing or duplicated genes, and can generate new, markedly diverged phenotypes. So what exactly is it that you think mutations can't do?
 
Upvote 0

driewerf

a day at the Zoo
Mar 7, 2010
3,434
1,961
✟267,108.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Their preaching to the choir, trying to make evolution look silly to those who don't know much about it.
They're. Like in They are.
It irritates me, as a non-native speaker to see people for whom English is their first language to mix up there, they're, their. And also your and you're.
/Grammar nazi rant
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrid
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,052
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
They're. Like in They are.
It irritates me, as a non-native speaker to see people for whom English is their first language to mix up there, they're, their. And also your and you're.
/Grammar nazi rant
Some respect for the language
and for readers is called for.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,721
4,386
82
Goldsboro NC
✟262,180.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
They're. Like in They are.
It irritates me, as a non-native speaker to see people for whom English is their first language to mix up there, they're, their. And also your and you're.
/Grammar nazi rant
Yes, yes, you're right. It was a mistake, OK? I do know better--and the same thing annoys me, too--but I have the vision of an 80 year old (being one) and some things escape my proof-reading. :p
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,052
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Yes, yes, you're right. It was a mistake, OK? I do know better--and the same thing annoys me, too--but I have the vision of an 80 year old (being one) and some things escape my proof-reading. :p
Plus, auto- error volunteer's to put in
an apostrophe when plural was intended.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,721
4,386
82
Goldsboro NC
✟262,180.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Plus, auto- error volunteer's to put in
an apostrophe when plural was intended.
Now that you mention it, spell check seems to have gotten a mind of it's own. Like that awful AI monster on Google that I haven't gotten around to figuring out how to turn off yet.
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,052
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Now that you mention it, spell check seems to have gotten a mind of it's own. Like that awful AI monster on Google that I haven't gotten around to figuring out how to turn off yet.
In Singapore I started trying to learn " Singlish"
which is now generally accepted as fully legit
language in its own.

A most interesting feature, imo, is its extreme
efficiency.

Suggested reading / YouTube check for details.

What goog would do to it when written, I hate to think.

 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,238
10,136
✟284,385.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Yes, yes, you're right. It was a mistake, OK? I do know better--and the same thing annoys me, too--but I have the vision of an 80 year old (being one) and some things escape my proof-reading. :p
Alternatively, you could have asserted that your post should be read as -
Their preaching to the choir, [implicitly their trite attempts; their cliched attacks] trying to make evolution look silly to those who don't know much about it [are self serving].
In that case "their" would be correct. Bravo for choosing honesty. :)
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,143
73
53
Midwest
✟33,947.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Sometimes they do. Sometimes they create a new function. Ignoring that reality won't make it go away.

Yeah, that's wrong, too. Random mutations can be observed to generate new functions at quite a respectable rate, we can observe closely related genes with different functions and reconstruct their origin in a gene duplication event as well as the mutations that led to a new function, and we can also identify the mutations that caused nonfunctional sequence to become functional in some species.

All of which is to say that we have very good evidence that random mutations can create new genes, can generate new molecular functions for existing or duplicated genes, and can generate new, markedly diverged phenotypes. So what exactly is it that you think mutations can't do?
Our last two posts are not mutually exclusive.

Corrupting information which specifies a particular function CAN create a 'new' function.
Again as in the example of a bear losing pigment in it's fur. The non pigmented/white fur provides a useful new 'function' as camouflage in the arctic.
And the same random entropy applies to the exhaust on a car- if it rusts and falls off, the car will go faster and get better mileage.

But it's still a loss of functional design information.
And crucially an evolutionary dead end; additional random corruption will never restore the original functions; pigment in the bears fur or a complete new exhaust system- the entropy works in one direction only, towards decay, degradation, regardless of whether that degradation happens upon an advantage in certain niche environments along the way.

And so the problem remains; how do you evolve a single celled bacteria into a human being by merely destroying functional genetic information?
 
Upvote 0

Astrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
11,052
3,695
40
Hong Kong
✟188,686.00
Country
Hong Kong
Gender
Female
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Our last two posts are not mutually exclusive.

Corrupting information which specifies a particular function CAN create a 'new' function.
Again as in the example of a bear losing pigment in it's fur. The non pigmented/white fur provides a useful new 'function' as camouflage in the arctic.
And the same random entropy applies to the exhaust on a car- if it rusts and falls off, the car will go faster and get better mileage.

But it's still a loss of functional design information.
And crucially an evolutionary dead end; additional random corruption will never restore the original functions; pigment in the bears fur or a complete new exhaust system- the entropy works in one direction only, towards decay, degradation, regardless of whether that degradation happens upon an advantage in certain niche environments along the way.

And so the problem remains; how do you evolve a single celled bacteria into a human being by merely destroying functional genetic information?
Are you trying to disprove / discredit
evolution, or understand it?

There's lots of questions about how it works.

That's the nature of things. Lots of questions
about electrucity, or the moon, say.

You seem to be working with some fundamentally
flawed concepts.

Aboutv" information" , entropy,.
" destroying functional genetic info".
Your take on entropy is painfully wrong.


You will never get anywhere with such a faulty foundation.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,773
52,549
Guam
✟5,134,786.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You seem to be working with some fundamentally flawed concepts.

About "information" , entropy, "destroying functional genetic info".

Your take on entropy is painfully wrong.

You will never get anywhere with such a faulty foundation.

QV please:

The Entropy of the Bible

I made up the formula:

HBible

It simply means the entropy of the Bible (throughout time) is zero.
 
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
7,038
4,917
NW
✟263,489.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
And so the problem remains; how do you evolve a single celled bacteria into a human being by merely destroying functional genetic information?
Nobody is claiming such a thing happened.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,143
73
53
Midwest
✟33,947.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nobody is claiming such a thing happened.
Most people don't, but you'd have to argue that with Darwinists, they literally still believe humans evolved from single celled bacteria like organism through purely random mutations!
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,143
73
53
Midwest
✟33,947.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Are you trying to disprove / discredit
evolution, or understand it?

There's lots of questions about how it works.

That's the nature of things. Lots of questions
about electrucity, or the moon, say.

You seem to be working with some fundamentally
flawed concepts.

Aboutv" information" , entropy,.
" destroying functional genetic info".
Your take on entropy is painfully wrong.


You will never get anywhere with such a faulty foundation.
Understand it.

As David Raup (paleontologist and curator of the Chicago Field Museum) said: if we look at the fossil record, we clearly see that evolution has occurred, if we define evolution as simply change over time, but it doesn't tell us how that change occurred, and that is really the question.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,167
7,483
31
Wales
✟426,819.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Most people don't, but you'd have to argue that with Darwinists, they literally still believe humans evolved from single celled bacteria like organism through purely random mutations!

And that's a problem for you. Everyone here gets that.
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,143
73
53
Midwest
✟33,947.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And that's a problem for you. Everyone here gets that.
:) And so the problem remains; how do you evolve a single celled bacteria into a human being by merely corrupting functional genetic information?

Take a swing a the substance of the scientific question, you sound like a reasonably intelligent person to me, don't let anyone tell you, you are not smart enough to actually debate this. You don't have to hit it out of the park in one go, none of us can, but give it a shot. Once you get past the standard internet ad hominem stuff, the science can actually get fairly interesting.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,167
7,483
31
Wales
✟426,819.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
:) And so the problem remains; how do you evolve a single celled bacteria into a human being by merely corrupting functional genetic information?

Take a swing a the substance of the scientific question, you sound like a reasonably intelligent person to me, don't let anyone tell you, you are not smart enough to actually debate this. You don't have to hit it out of the park in one go, none of us can, but give it a shot. Once you get past the standard internet ad hominem stuff, the science can actually get fairly interesting.

Well, considering that evolution and mutation don't work the way you say they work, then it's not really a problem at all for anyone but you! :)
 
Upvote 0