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.
and i just explained why they are. and i didnt see any counter evidence so far.
if you consider a scientific evidence as "imaginary evidence" so sure. be my guest.I'll take the word of actual biologists and geneticists, over the word of a random internet creationist who thinks presenting imaginary evidence somehow has the power to overthrow established science.
if you consider a scientific evidence as "imaginary evidence" so sure. be my guest.
Ridiculous to claim importance....
The fact that even if we go by conservative estimates 60% is non functional, evolutionists are still debating if biological activity means function,Now, if creationist claims of a fully-functional genome had merit, you might have a point.
it just proves that the genome was once more functional.
But thanks for yet again shooting down creationist arguments!
I know you prefer fantasy to facts, but to now be a percentage non-functional, it must have once been that same percentage more functional. You can’t reduce functionality if you didn’t start with more functionality.
Where did Asians come from?
Where did Africans come from?
Which 2 pre-existing 'races' mated to make them?
And where did THEY come from - your scenario is self-defeating at every step.
Only because you refuse to accept the evidence, that humans remain human as far back as you can go, until you get to this non-existent ancestor.
But I hate to point out to you how new variants arose, why it just might be similar to interbreeding.
http://emerald.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/about_antibioticres.shtml
“Bacteria can acquire antibiotic resistance genes from other bacteria in several ways. By undergoing a simple mating process called "conjugation," ...”
But I wouldn’t want to imply similarity of genome exchange. Why yes I would!
Why not, you still fail to accept all dog breeds came from wolves through interbreeding. If the facts that over 100 breeds can exist this way can’t convince you, nothing will convince you 12-15 races can.
That’s your flawed assumption, because you need to believe they had near identicke genomes.
That is where the myth originated.And who said the original pair would be classified as middle eastern?
Never once said mutations can not affect skin color, eye color, hair color, or even cause birth defects. I see no contradiction at all since I have repeatedly stated mutations caused variation in skin color. But as was pointed out to you by your own biologists, such mutations have no bearing on ancestory.
Self evident. A perfect genome would contain all variations possible within them.
That’s why we got 100 breeds of dog from merely interbreeding wolves, even if they are not even the original pair.
Yah I know, I’m your world things don’t mate I guess. Well let’s see. African mates with Asian. Nine months later a Afro-Asian is born.
No I’m not equating evolution with anything, it doesn’t exist. Just the combining of genomes to create that new variant.
If that is so, then are you saying that mutations that alter skin color are defects?We certainly don’t need mutation and evolution to explain them.
“The aortic arches are formed sequentially within the pharyngeal arches and initially appear symmetrical on both sides of the embryo,[1] but then undergo a significant remodelling to form the final asymmetrical structure of the great arteries.”
All done by existing code within the genes. But we do know mutations lead to defects....
Blah blah blah.
Apparently, in your quest to save face, you didn't notice that all of that is only about the alleles for eye color. That is, they all deal with a continuously varying trait.
This is interesting and all, but 100% irrelevant to the point I had made (and lost on you):
"You truly seem to think that any allele can recombine or mix and match with any other allele, no matter what the alleles are - that is the ONLY way your fantasy could even hope to have merit.
But reality does not operate that way."
Your own link indicates:
"A number of groups surveyed associations of single-nucleotide polymorphisms with eye color, with fairly consistent results: variation in the HERC2 and OCA2 genes, which are next to each other on chromosome 15, plays a major role in determining eye color."
Tell us all, won't you, what is meant by "single-nucleotide polymorphisms "?
And your link also mentions this paper:
"Genetics of human iris colour and patterns"
Richard A. Sturm and Mats Larsson
in which we see:
"Nevertheless, it has been estimated that 74% of the variance in human eye colour can be explained by one interval on chromosome 15 that contains the OCA2 gene. Fine mapping of this region has identified a single base change rs12913832 T ⁄C within intron 86 of the
upstream HERC2 locus that explains almost all of this association with blue-brown eye colour. A model is presented whereby this SNP, serving as a target site for the SWI ⁄SNF family member HLTF, acts as part of a highly evolutionary conserved regulatory element required for OCA2 gene activation through chromatin remodelling. "
and one can also note the paper's Table 1. Human pigmentation gene polymorphisms associated with eye colour -
tell us all what is meant by "gene polymorphisms", won't you?
And tell us all, with your amazing genetics expertise (bolstered by keyword searches to find quotes that can be taken out of context to try to save face), HOW such things as "gene polymorphisms" and SNPs come to be?
Must be by interbreeding and hybridization, right?
LOL!!!
My gosh...
No, a continuously variable trait is something like height. There is HEIGHT, then within that trait, we have short, medium, tall, etc. I know of many people that are my exact same height. Don't you?
So, in your Grant paper, where they talk about these sorts of traits being influenced more by hybridization than mutation, it is because different combinations of alleles play a greater role than individual birds experiencing mutations and - wait for it - generating new alleles, since these would be of lower frequency in the population. Mixing and matching the relevant associated alleles that already exist (and already exist due to mutation) via hybridization has a greater short-term impact than new allele generation and waiting for them to increase in frequency sufficiently to have an impact on phenotype.
I think you confuse alleles with phenotype?
Do you still think they are called "allies"?
Not at all.
You continue to look at these issues like a middle schooler.
Let us say for the sake of argument that height at the shoulders for wolves is governed by 10 loci.
A breeding pair will possess a maximum of a total of 40 possible alleles at these 10 loci.
Why a maximum? Because some could be identical, right?
So if we mix and match 40 alleles (4 per locus, 10 possible combinations per locus - remember? ABCD = AA,AB,AC,AD,etc.?), we can get a maximum of 100 unique combinations (or is it 400? My head hurts...).
Other factors influence height, such as nutritional status, etc. - we will ignore that for simplicity.
Wow! Justa population genetics is saved!
Or is it -
With 400 possible allele combination at 10 loci at which both member of a breeding pair had different alleles - we just populated a continuum with individuals of differing height.
We did NOT get a Mastiff and a Chihuahua - we just got wolves of differing heights.
But wait - you say that Adam and Eve had "perfect" genomes, that is, no mutation, so all of their alleles at these 10 loci had to have been identical (since that is how alleles arise - mutation).
That is right - creationists seem to believe that mutation was the result of the Fall - a curse. A punishment. So genetic variation - new alleles - is a punishment, if we accept creationist logic.
Creationist urologist Barney Maddox writes:
"The perpetuation of the Darwin myth clashes with reality--the God-created reality--where living things and their genomes were created "very good" and have degenerated from there."
Creationist John Mackay has a GREAT totally sciencey take on mutations - a must read. He demolishes the 'all hybridization all the time' model of Justa is seconds flat.
"So did God invent mutations? An analogy will help. God did invent gravity without which life would not be possible. Your bits wouldn’t stick and we wouldn’t have a planet to live on. But once gravity is invented, you can choose to jump out of a plane at 30,000 feet, but don’t you dare argue God pushed you! Obey the law of gravity and live, but the default setting of the law of gravity will kill you, specially when de-fault is yours. Likewise God did invent genes, but disobey his law and the default settings which do involve gene degeneration will bring about your death."
And this Bible and genetics expert writes:
"...explains all the phenomena and genetic mutations in species we see today and can be traced back to our roots and the fall of man in the Garden of Eden."
Amazing insights.
So no new alleles in Adam and Eve - all loci =A (AA,AA,AA,AA).
Thus, no Africans, Asians, etc. to hybridize to get Afro-Asians.
Just following Justa's scientific model's logic here, folks.
Right - because I understand where 'interbreeding' gets its raw material from.
You refuse to.
Ummm... OK - so you DON'T think that mutations producing new alleles that affect height will influence height?
So what DOES affect height? Mixing up the "allies" that affect height via hybridization.
OK - where did those new "allies" come from?
Interesting.
From the fellow that STILL thinks alleles are called "allies", and who simultaneously declares - without evidence - that Adam and Eve had "perfect" genomes, but through the 'interbreeding' of their inbred, perfect-genome-having offspring, we get NEW combinations of alleles (that arose via???) producing all extant phenotypes (only to be washed away in a big flood (for which there is also no evidence) leaving only 4 inbreeding pairs to, yet again, re-populate and re-diversify all of humanity in only a couple hundred generations)...
I stand totally refuted.... A dude on the internet, who thinks alleles are called "allies", has totally refuted not only all of population genetics, but all of standard classical and transmission genetics as well!
LOL!!
And these magical splits from inbred middle easterners creating Africans - evidence please.
Going to misrepresent the Grant paper some more?
Going to conflate continuous variation with mutations again?
Going to claim additive genetic variance means that hybridization creates new 'allies'?
I am curious - who exactly do you think you are impressing with your continual gaffes and errors?
Where did all those entirely different genomes you speak of come from in the first place, Which combination of Adam and Eve mated to get Africans? Which combination of Adam and Eve mated to get Asians? Which combination of Adam and Eve mated to get Anglo-Saxons?Who's misrepresenting the Grant's paper but you yourself?
Apparently other biologists have no problem understanding what it means.
“... In short, they argue that hybridization may act as a possibly more abundant source of adaptive genetic variation than mutation because mutations are rare and hybridization common. They cite Grant & Grant (1994) who estimated that the amount of new, additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization was two to three orders of magnitude higher than that introduced by mutation in Darwin's finches. We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one introduced by hybridization. ...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234156635_The_unpredictable_impact_of_hybridization
But as noted before the grants found the truth, such was neglected in studies, so I understand your beliefs stem from studies that failed to take into account the reality of breeding....
“During this non-equilibrium phase, inter-individual variation in traits affecting dispersal becomes spatially assorted because, at each generation, the best dispersers aggregate at the expanding front, seeding new populations. Notably, inter-individual variation is an inherent property of all natural populations, with profound implications for non-equilibrium processes such as range expansion and hybridization that have long been neglected, most often for the sake of simplicity [19]. As the expansion wave advances, the process of spatial sorting can promote rapid directional evolution of traits favoring dispersal, thus further accelerating the establishment of populations in newly colonized areas.”
And has been shown to be true in every species tried, even fish.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...orphological_diversity_in_adaptive_radiations
"The process of adaptive radiation involves multiple events of speciation in short succession, associated with ecological diversification. Understanding this process requires identifying the origins of heritable phenotypic variation that allows adaptive radiation to progress. Hybridization is one source of genetic and morphological variation that may spur adaptive radiation. We experimentally explored the potential role of hybridization in facilitating the onset of adaptive radiation. We generated first- and second-generation hybrids of four species of African cichlid fish, extant relatives of the putative ancestors of the adaptive radiations of Lakes Victoria and Malawi. We compared patterns in hybrid morphological variation with the variation in the lake radiations. We show that significant fractions of the interspecific morphological variation and the major trajectories in morphospace that characterize whole radiations can be generated in second-generation hybrids. Furthermore, we show that covariation between traits is relaxed in second-generation hybrids, which may facilitate adaptive diversification. These results support the idea that hybridization can provide the heritable phenotypic diversity necessary to initiate adaptive radiation. "
To plants....
https://www.researchgate.net/public...n_is_important_in_evolution_but_is_speciation
"... This results from segregation and recombination between the parental genomes ( Arnold et al., 2012;Abbott et al., 2013). Previous studies have shown that hybrids are usually a complex mosaic of both parental morphological characters rather than just intermediate pheno-types, and a large proportion of first and later generation hybrids which exhibit extreme or novel characters ( Abbott et al., 2013;Saetre, 2013). The increased morphological variability, increased number of flowers per plant, and different flower colour variations and mode of presentation, exhibited by Psoralea hybrids in our study possibly account for the observed increase in the number and types of different species of pollinators (Xylocopa and Megachile spp) contributing to the observed higher reproductive success of the hybrids in these populations (Stirton pers. ..."
As one said it best....
“Hybridization is a biological process that, through the cross-breeding between individuals from distinct but closely related taxa, or between discrete entities that exchange genes, can deeply affect their genetic make-up, long-term survival and evolution ( Parham et al. 2013;Saetre 2013;Gompert and Buerkle 2016). Natural hybridization is no longer viewed as a sporadic and undesirable evolutionary dead-end, but rather as a relatively frequent and potentially creative process ( Mallet 2008;Larsen et al. 2010;Bailey et al. 2013;Stern 2013;Rius and Darlin”
Your blue moon mutation belief is dying. Just accept reality and get over it.
“... Hybridization may contribute directly to the origin of species , either as a result of reinforcement or hybrid speciation (Servedio and Noor 2003; Mallet 2007; Abbott et al. 2010 Abbott et al. , 2013). Some proponents of this view, like many of their colleagues, invoke the specter of Mayr (1942) and suggest that hybridization has traditionally been viewed as an " evolutionary dead end " (Seehausen 2013), or together with gene flow, as " mainly destructive forces with little evolutionary consequence " (Saetre 2013). Homoploid hybrid speciation involves the formation of novel genetic combinations and novel adaptations that allow persistence of the hybrid lineage , often in an environment distinct from that of either parent. ...”
As I said in another post.....
Update your scientific knowledge. Stop following dead beliefs from 1942....
But I noticed all you did is make claims and could not support your stance with a single source.......
Sorry, but biologists are replacing your useless blue moon mutations with the reality of breeding being the prime mover in variation. Get with the times, stop your useless PR.
And you still reject that the Grants came to the conclusion that interbreeding affected numerous genetic loci simultaneously and was 2 to 3 magnitudes more important than mutations.Yet he still claims that it is interbreeding/hybridization that produced the 'original' variation that produced Asians from middle easterners.
Mutations affect one gene loci,
if they even manage to do anything, as we all understand the majority are neutral, then harmful, then in rare circumstances beneficial. So one mutation may take effect every 20,000 generations (E coli), while interbreeding affects those multiple genetic loci with every single mating.
That’s how you get from wolf to chiwawah [sic] in a few thousand years.
That’s how ground finch mating with tree finch got to a new variation.
And while I can provide and have done so, numerous examples of change in form through interbreeding, you have yet to provide any.
As you didn't respond first time I'll try again.
So for introgressive hybridization to occur two species must be at an early stage of the speciation process?
From the paper you linked to....
Divergence and a decline in introgression with time implies that introgression has the largest evolutionary effect after some morphological, ecological and genetic differences between species have arisen, but before the point is reached when genetic incompatibilities incur a severe fitness cost (Grant et al. 2004; Grant & Grant 2008).
In nature it occurs mainly between young species (figure 8), and is evident in several young adaptive radiations including those of butterflies (Mallett 2005), cichlid fish (Kocher 2004; Seehausen 2006) and primates (Arnold 2006; Patterson et al. 2006). With the lapse of time introgression declines, for two reasons: species diverge in morphological and behavioural traits and no longer recognize each other as potential mates (pre-mating isolation), and they diverge genetically with the result that if they interbreed their offspring are relatively inviable or infertile (post-mating isolation).
To any reasonable person that should suggest that there is another mechanism responsible for genetic divergence.
It also suggests that the two species that are hybridizing must have diverged relatively recently from their ancestral population, so the speciation process must surely be underway before they can hybridize?
Almost 8 months later, and our hero is STILL making the same false claims, and STILL relying on the same couple of papers to do so despite the fact that they CONTRADICT what he thinks they mean....
The Grant's paper really seems to be a thorn in the side of some creationists. As you say, after eight months he is still (unsuccessfully, I might add) trying to argue against speciation being observed in the wild.
Evolution literally means "change over time". The phrase "modifications in a population over time" is just a longer way of saying the exact same thing. If the theory of evolution was originally called "the theory of modifications over time", you'd call that trashy instead.Speciation/evolution is nothing more than changes within His and Their kinds and is Scripturally correct. Changing the name from descent with modifications in a population over time, into the trashy word "evolution" brings increased punishment for those who force teach that Lie to little children. Mat 18:6 Mar 9:42 Luk 17:2 So WHY would a Creationist disagree with that? In the end, Justice comes to those liars who try to brainwash our children. Amen?
Speciation/evolution is nothing more than changes within His and Their kinds and is Scripturally correct. Changing the name from descent with modifications in a population over time, into the trashy word "evolution" brings increased punishment for those who force teach that Lie to little children. Mat 18:6 Mar 9:42 Luk 17:2 So WHY would a Creationist disagree with that? In the end, Justice comes to those liars who try to brainwash our children. Amen?
Wow, thanks for that, I had no idea... But...No be honest with yourself. You brought up single-nucleotide polymorphism. Which I showed was nothing more than a single letter replaced by another existing letter.
What do you mean by "letter"?You then got upset because you thought you were going to prove single letters had nothing to do with it.
I must have missed it - please show me where you quoted my "own scientific definition" of "mutation" and "allele" that indicates that hybridization is the source of all new alleles and that mutation does not exist* - because that is actually in effect what you have been claiming all along, and it looks like you cannot even understand your own claims (or are trying to run away from them).So I quoted your own scientific definition, which confirmed I was correct, and you just can’t admit you were wrong in your false claims.
OK, bro... You remind me of those obese sports nuts that yell from the stands "You suck!" at a major league pitcher when an opponent gets a base hit...Now your going to go pout because you lack any knowledge of what you claim to understand and it was shown to all.
But let’s reiterate that definition to make your lack of inderstanding clear, so people will stop being fooled by your pretend knowledge.
Single-nucleotide polymorphism - Wikipedia
“For example, at a specific base position in the human genome, the C nucleotide may appear in most individuals, but in a minority of individuals, the position is occupied by an A. This means that there is an SNP at this specific position, and the two possible nucleotide variations – C or A – are said to be alleles for this position.“
So you bring up SNP, then go on a rant when I show they are nothing more than single letters being replaced by single letters that already existed.
Take a break, and read up on what you clearly fail to understand in the meantime.
Brilliant!And yet they are all still finches...hmmm!
Sadly, to no avail... I do hope that perhaps some of the 'silent majority' (judging by the number of views a thread gets compared to the number of active posters) see how creationists operate.The Grant's paper really seems to be a thorn in the side of some creationists. As you say, after eight months he is still (unsuccessfully, I might add) trying to argue against speciation being observed in the wild. I am pleased that so many people have taken the time to put these people straight and try to alleviate the Dunning-Kruger that seems rampant!!
Evolution literally means "change over time". The phrase "modifications in a population over time" is just a longer way of saying the exact same thing. If the theory of evolution was originally called "the theory of modifications over time", you'd call that trashy instead.
But given that you can change one species into another with a sufficient amount of change, then there must be some limiting mechanism if what you say is true, to make sure they don't change too much. Do you have any evidence of such a mechanism?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?