Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm not quite sure what this paper is saying, but it doesn't seem to be "mutations are non-random".

This one does, but it's talking about cancer, not reproduction, which offers fundamentally different challenges. We know the mutations that lead to cancer are not entirely random; that's how we can classify certain things as carcinogenic or not!

That's because biologists have given up on mutations as concerning reproduction long ago in real life versus imaginations of the mind. The only place mutations were studied as respecting reproduction is in plant and animal husbandry. Where every single biologist involved agreed mutations were not viable as a new source of information. Where every single experiment failed to produce the outcomes expected.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Because this randomness is, to some extent, conserved. It's not like the whole genome fluctuates wildly with every generation. Keep in mind we're talking about populations, not individuals, and at a population level, some mutations will be selected against and some mutations will be kept. Although even in vastly simplified models, where such things as gene conservation are not taken into account, you will still get consistent nested hierarchies, as the CDK007 video makes perfectly clear.

No, we are talking about individuals - not populations. A random mutation would occur in an individual - and not be passed on to the rest of the population unless that individual or its descendants mate with every single other one - or all the others die off and only those with the mutation survive. Don't try those strawmen please, I have asked you this several times. Random mutations do not spread to the population by magic. If someone in LA had a random mutation - at most it would only pass to their descendants - leaving those in New York completely unaffected. In a population of billions, the random mutation will always be limited to those who belong to that particular family line and will never become fixed in the general population.

So at the beginning, we have one population. This population undergoes various mutations. Then, that population splits, and all of the mutations thus far are conserved by each of the two groups. Then, each of these groups undergoes various mutations. Now, consider a separate group, which started with the same genetic material but was completely distinct from the start. It undergoes random genetic mutation. Will its genetics appear similar to the other group? No. Given the random nature of the mutations themselves, similar mutations might be selected for (assuming these groups had the same selection pressure), but you will not end up with the same pattern of similarities and differences that you would among the first group, or its divergent branches. However, those divergent branches will show a pattern of similarities, because they both got those specific mutations from their shared ancestor.

No, in the beginning we have two breeds - one male, one female - each one containing half the genetic code for everything that exists or will exist. Some may be lost through the ages - but nothing new is ever added. What already exists is merely transcribed into a new dominant or recessive order. There was no mutation involved - merely the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits as observed in every single reproduction experiment performed in plant and animal husbandry. (above citation)

This is a large part of why this:

"when nested hierarchies are observed to occur in breeding pairs"

Is not a viable model. These nested hierarchies occur far, far above the level where your proposed mechanism would work

And yet we see exactly those nested hierarchy's at exactly the level of breed mating with breed. You observe them nowhere else but at the family level, no matter how much you might dream it to be otherwise.

You can make all the claims you want - but in the end they are just claims and wishful thinking - countered by the direct empirical evidence. Only when two things mate - does a hierarchy tree come into existence. No tree exists from one individual anywhere on the planet.

The fact that we can observe this nested hierarchy throughout all of nature, and that it concords with morphology, with individual genes, with embryology, with ERVs... All of this is empirical observation that points to one thing and one thing only: common ancestry. Yes, in the last few hundred years that we've been looking, we haven't seen massive divergences in morphology. We wouldn't expect to. But to claim that there is no empirical observation of common ancestry as a result is completely wrong and ignores the strongest and most important evidence evolution has to offer.

You have no choice but to expect large divergences - just look at your claimed whale evolution for example. There's nothing gradual about it. So now you go against your own claims - when gradual changes is what is expected from mating pairs as genes recombine into new dominant and recessive traits - gradual as in the picture above - only minor differences between parent and offspring.

Abiogenesis is a field in its infancy; actually establishing what the first lifeforms looked like is almost impossible, given that they were almost certainly microscopic soft cells that would not leave much in terms of fossils. Brooker is right; the origin of life is still largely an unknown. This does nothing to detract from the theory of evolution, which deals with life after it has started to exist.

So now you are promoting spontaneous generation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
"Belief in the present ongoing spontaneous generation of certain forms of life from non-living matter goes back to Aristotle and ancient Greek philosophy and continued to have support in Western scholarship until the 19th century. This belief was paired with a belief in heterogenesis, i.e., that one form of life derived from a different form (e.g., bees from flowers). Classical notions of spontaneous generation, which can be considered under the modern term abiogenesis, held that certain complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
"Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms.

So now you propose the decent of living organisms without the descent from similar living organisms????? Are evolutionists really that lost, that they would resurrect an obsolete body of thought to defend their falsified theory? All you have done is changed bees from flowers into humans from chimps.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Given that most of what we understand of natural law we learned despite what is said in the Bible, and in some cases trying to prove a part of the Bible and ending up disproving it, I don't see how you can claim the Bible holds any understanding on how the natural world works.

Name one thing about life you have disproved in the Bible?

 

[joshua 1 9]

For example, take a look at this post I made today.

To bad Spielberg never got the memo on this one. Sounds like your Dinos would make a lot better of a family movie then the thriller that Spielberg seems to want to keep pumping out.

 

[In situ]

To bad Spielberg never got the memo on this one. Sounds like your Dinos would make a lot better of a family movie then the thriller that Spielberg seems to want to keep pumping out.

I am not surprised by your reply. And your attempt to insults have no effect on me. Let me instead tranlate what you said so it is clear for everyone: I don't understand what I am looking at therefore it cannot be what it is claimed to be.

Argument from ignornace is not an argument. But I take your point; you are in denial of all and any evidence and have no intention to change that. I take it that your OP was just a fake and the only intention seams to be to troll people and make yourself more confident in your own belief by denying anything that is presented to you. Fine with me, live with your delusion if you wish, but remember if you cannot admit your are wrong then you wont be able to get to the truth of anything.

 

[joshua 1 9]

c

I am not surprised by your reply. And your attempt to insults have no effect on me. Let me instead tranlate what you said so it is clear for everyone: I don't understand what I am looking at therefore it cannot be what it is claimed to be.

I had no intent to insult you. Just the same I will be more careful in the future.

 

[bhsmte]

I just don't know about germ theory so I guess I will have to take your word for it. What I do know is about diet and how obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer are all epidemic at this point in time and science has failed mankind in dealing with this crises. You have to present evidence and the evidence right now when it comes to diet shows every indication that science is failing to get the job done. Evolution has LOTS to contribute to the discussion and not once has anybody on this board taken up the challenge to try and use the theory of evolution to determine what sort of a diet we evolved to eat. If the theory of evolution is true then the last thing we should be eating is McDonald's. So you can all pat yourselves on the back and congratulate yourselves on how wonderful your theory is, but until you apply that theory to help deal with the catastrophic epidemics that plague us today then you have accomplished nothing.

The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health, and Disease

Starred Review. In thoroughly enjoyable and edifying prose, Lieberman, professor of human evolution at Harvard, leads a fascinating journey through human evolution. He comprehensively explains how evolutionary forces have shaped the human species as we know it, from the move to bipedalism, and the changes in body parts—from hands to feet and spine—that such a change entailed, to the creation of agrarian societies, and much more. He balances a historical perspective with a contemporary one—examining traits of our ancestors as carefully as he looks to the future—while asking how we might control the destiny of our species. He argues persuasively that cultural evolution is now the dominant force of evolutionary change acting on the human body, and focuses on what he calls mismatch diseases that are caused by lack of congruence between genes and environment. Since the pace of cultural evolution has outstripped that of biological evolution, mismatch diseases have increased to the point where most of us are likely to die of such causes. Lieberman's discussion of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and breast cancer are as clear as any yet published, and he offers a well-articulated case for why an evolutionary perspective can greatly enrich the practice of medicine.

Like it or not, we are slightly fat, furless, bipedal primates who crave sugar, salt, fat, and starch. Harvard professor Lieberman holds nothing back in his plea that people listen to the story of human evolution consisting of five biological transformations (walking upright, eating a variety of different foods, accumulating physical traits aligned to hunting and gathering, gaining bigger brains with larger bodies, and developing unique capacities for cooperation and language) and two cultural ones (farming and reliance on machines). Unfortunately, human beings now create environments and presently practice lifestyles that are clearly out of sync with the bodies they’ve inherited. This mismatch results in myriad problems, including Type 2 diabetes, myopia, flat feet, and cavities. Lieberman cleverly and comprehensively points out the perils of possessing Paleolithic anatomy and physiology in a modern world and bemoans just how out of touch we have become with our bodies. Natural selection nudges all life-forms toward optimality rather than a state of perfection. If we want to continue our phenomenal run as a species, it is essential to understand (and embrace) our evolutionary legacy.

I hate to break it to you, but all the science in the world, can't force someone to change their lifestyle.

 

[In situ]

I had no intent to insult you. Just the same I will be more careful in the future.

Accepted. The point with my post is this: here we have something that looks like a bird - but it isn't a bird!

I can give you more example of this if you wish but see no point in doing so. The point is; it is undeniable a birdlike dinosaur, but how do we explain the existence of of such mixed creature and why do they even exist in the first place? Do you have a better explanation than the well documented theory of biological reproduction and how it works? If so I like to hear it.

P.S. It is not me you insulted but knowledge in general and yourself in particular. D.S.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

To bad Spielberg never got the memo on this one. Sounds like your Dinos would make a lot better of a family movie then the thriller that Spielberg seems to want to keep pumping out.

Yes, not only do they incorrectly classify different breeds of a species as separate species in the fossil record, but take huge artistic license when portraying things - because they are more concerned with making the data fit theory, than fitting theory to the data.

Just like half the claimed ancestors of modern humans - they draw them according to pre-concieved beliefs, acording to pre-conceived beliefs on what they had to look like because of evolution and age.
Here are the humans with large brow ridges - and we don't have to pretend they looked like apes.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ayer_with_a_pronounced_supraorbital_ridge.jpg

Here is what they most likely looked like.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Accepted. The point with my post is this: here we have something that looks like a bird - bit it isn't a bird!

I can give you more example of this if you wish but see no point in doing so. The point is; it is undeniable a birdlike dinosaur, but how do we explain the existence of of such mixed creature and why do they even exist in the first place? Do you have a better explanation than the well documented theory of biological reproduction and how it works? If so I like to hear it.

P.S. It is not me you insulted but knowledge in general and yourself in particular. D.S.

The same way everything else exists. From breed mating with breed producing new breeds (variation) within the species. The species it belonged to is extinct. It evolved from nothing and evolved into nothing. Two other breeds in that same species mated and produced it. Perhaps it then mated with another breed and produced other similar creatures. But they are not birds - were never birds - and never became birds. They one and all went extinct when that darkness became upon the earth.

There is no more reason to propose a transitional form than we need to propose one between Afro-Asians when an Asian and an African mate. You are basing your concepts on pre-conceived ideas of how it was, while ignoring how it is. Asian remains Asian and African remains African, until they mate and produce an Afro-Asian - which appears suddenly in the record with no transitory links between. A Husky remains Husky, a Mastiff remains Mastiff. The empirical evidence is right in front of you and occurs on a daily basis. There is no reason to assume anything different in the past. All of those things you have incorrectly identified as separate species - are in reality - different breeds of the same species. Some more than likely just babies and adults of the same species as well.

 

[Loudmouth]

I just don't know about germ theory so I guess I will have to take your word for it.

You could ask the guy who ran the NIH Human Genome Project, and is also a devout Christian.

"Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics."--Dr. Francis Collins
http://biologos.org/blog/francis-collins-and-karl-giberson-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-2

What I do know is about diet and how obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer are all epidemic at this point in time and science has failed mankind in dealing with this crises.

No, it hasn't. Scientists can't force people to eat a good diet. That's a bit ridiculous.

Evolution has LOTS to contribute to the discussion and not once has anybody on this board taken up the challenge to try and use the theory of evolution to determine what sort of a diet we evolved to eat.

What answer does creationism give? What evidence does creationism use?

 

[bhsmte]

You could ask the guy who ran the NIH Human Genome Project, and is also a devout Christian.

"Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics."--Dr. Francis Collins
http://biologos.org/blog/francis-collins-and-karl-giberson-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-2



No, it hasn't. Scientists can't force people to eat a good diet. That's a bit ridiculous.



What answer does creationism give? What evidence does creationism use?

He already said he doesn't agree with Francis Collins. He didn't give reasons why, he just doesn't agree.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, not only do they incorrectly classify different breeds of a species as separate species in the fossil record,

Then show us a modern human that has the same features as H. erectus.

Here are the humans with large brow ridges - and we don't have to pretend they looked like apes.

Fail. Look at the hugely vaulted forehead. Look at the pronounced cleft in the lower jaw. None of these features are found in H. erectus. Here is Turkana boy, an example of H. erectus:

Notice how the forehead slopes straight back from the eye ridges. Notice how the chin goes straight back from the teeth. Both of these features are not found in living humans. These are more basal ape features which is why H. erectus is a transitional species.

Added in edit:

Here is a skull from H. sapiens. Notice how the forehead goes up, not back. Notice how the chin sticks forward instead of sweeping straight back. Notice the overall increase in the size of the cranium v. the size of the jaw. H. erectus is not a modern human.

 

[In situ]

So now you are promoting spontaneous generation?

You are quote mining, and doing so badly. Abiogenesis is not a theory of spontaneous generation. It is a pre-biotic theory involving complex chemistry reactions as a precursor for life, i.e. it is a theory of chemical evolution that ultimately led to life and biological evolution of cells. That is what the 'a' stands for in a-biogenesis, i.e it is theory of that which was before the begging of life.

How you get a natural explanation to be the same as spontaneous generation is beyond me.

So now you propose the decent of living organisms without the descent from similar living organisms????? Are evolutionists really that lost,

No, the only one lost here is you if you do not realize that before life there must be a precursor to life that was non life - something simpler than life.

To draw an analog: you are chemicals collected from the environment. Before your mother was was born, you was not a living creature, not even a cell, "you" did not even exist (at they very least there is nothing that even sightly indicates that this would be the case). In a sense "you" was spread out in nature all over the place as lifeless molecules. At the time you was formed in your mother womb all these chemical that are "you" were assembled from the environment to form you - and this still goes on in everyone of us - about every 7th year you have replace every molecule in your body. So who are "you"? Definitley not the same matter as you was 7 years ago. None of these chemical you are made of can be said to have been "you" or to be alive or be life by them self. This implies you are created from non-life! You, yourself, was actually formed from none-life - and still are every 7th year. So what is the big deal here - why do you make such a big fuzz about (prebiotic) chemistry?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You could ask the guy who ran the NIH Human Genome Project, and is also a devout Christian.

"Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics."--Dr. Francis Collins
http://biologos.org/blog/francis-collins-and-karl-giberson-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-2



No, it hasn't. Scientists can't force people to eat a good diet. That's a bit ridiculous.



What answer does creationism give? What evidence does creationism use?

Propaganda is all that is. Because we sure see in biology Asian mating with African producing an Afro-Asian by the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits - and no evolution of one species into another by mutation, nor any missing transitional forms. Nor do we see evolution by mutation anywhere we look in the natural world.

If you were to develop a beneficial random mutation today (in your sexual reproductive organs where it would be required to be to be passed down), only your descendant's would benefit. It would never become fixed in the general population. It would not be passed to anyone not directly under your particular family line. There is no magic fixing mutations in the population. Unless say, you want to be open to the possibility that just a few thousands of years ago, the population was, say 2?

 

[In situ]

Here are the humans with large brow ridges - and we don't have to pretend they looked like apes.

Has it ever occurred to you that humans looks like apes because we might be apes? Just like all cats, i.e. felines, look the same and birds looks the same, etc...

 

[bhsmte]

Has it ever occurred to you that humans looks like apes because we might be apes? Just like all cats, i.e felines, look the same and birds looks the same, etc...

It probably has, but then there is a requirement for it to be quickly denied.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, it hasn't. Scientists can't force people to eat a good diet. That's a bit ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is that science can not agree among themselves what a good diet is. For a long time (FDR) the government has to step in to pull the reigns back on science to keep them from harming people with the junk garbage food they are trying to feeding the American public. Look at the Atkins diet for example. They want high protein high fat and low carbs. Other experts claim we need just the opposite a high carb low fat diet. There does not seem to be any sort of agreement.

 

[Loudmouth]

Propaganda is all that is. Because we sure see in biology Asian mating with African producing an Afro-Asian by the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits - and no evolution of one species into another by mutation, nor any missing transitional forms. Nor do we see evolution by mutation anywhere we look in the natural world.

Where do we see australopithecines?

If you were to develop a beneficial random mutation today (in your sexual reproductive organs where it would be required to be to be passed down), only your descendant's would benefit. It would never become fixed in the general population.

Please, show us why not.

It would not be passed to anyone not directly under your particular family line.

How is that a problem? Genetics has already shown that MRCA's (most recent common ancestor) are quite easy to produce, and that different genes can have different MRCA's. As it turns out, everyone is from the same family line at some point. It isn't a question of if you are cousins, but how many times removed.

Unless say, who want to be open to the possibility that just a few thousands years ago the population was, say 2?

You can have MRCA's with a constant population of 1 million people. Perhaps you should learn how population genetics works before claiming the entire field is wrong?

 

[Loudmouth]

What is ridiculous is that science can not agree among themselves what a good diet is.

What is ridiculous is that con men on TV and in print ads pretend to be backed by scientific studies when they are not. You seem to be confused by their antics.

For a long time the government has to step in to pull the reigns back on science to keep them from harming people with the junk garbage food they are trying to feeding the American public.

I thought corporations were feeding people these foods, not science.

Look at the Atkins diet for example. They want high protein high fat and low carbs. Other experts claim we need just the opposite a high carb low fat diet. There does not seem to be any sort of agreement.

Who are these experts? Where are the scientific studies backing their claims?

 

[In situ]

If you were to develop a beneficial random mutation today ... It would never become fixed in the general population.

It could never be fixed? Really - why is that? Or are you saying that you cannot imagine a scenario in where this ever could happen? Like, for instance, everyone dies out except your descendents with that particular mutation. Are you saying that not even under these conditions it is possible for it to be come fixed in the general population?