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.
True. Darwinist creationism is simply another creationist viewpoint, but cloaked in the guise of 'science'. (for now).
Now if you want to talk about adaptation or variation within kind/species, that's fine. As long as you don't try to tell me that Tigers and Lions that interbreed and have fertile offspring, are two separate species. .
There is nothing, not a single solitary experiment that has ever shown the feasibility of one species changing into another.
Mutations never create anything new, merely turn on dormant genes or turn off dominant ones, rearrange what is already there, or cross pathways and cause damage.
Now if you want to talk about adaptation or variation within kind/species, that's fine.
Well Loudmouth, he's not gonna get published if he concludes Evolution couldn't happen. Those "possible resolutions" are highly speculative and unrealistic at best.From that very abstract:
"Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations."
What's funny is that you think this paper "sorted out" the problem.Not to mention, the problem has been sorted out in real populations, such as in this study:
PLOS ONE: Mutational Meltdown in Primary Endosymbionts: Selection Limits Muller's Ratchet
To make a long story short, as deleterious mutations increase in a genome they hit a limit at which time any additional deleterious mutations are strongly selected against. The idea that slightly deleterious mutations can not be seen by natural selection is refuted by the very claim that creationists are making, that a single additional deleterious mutation will be lethal. Natural selection does select against lethal mutations, and does it quite well.
And because it lets people like me predict things that people like you can't predict. Why do you think that's the case?
Huh? I can use evolutionary biology to predict things like the differences between species. You certainly seem to think that you've got a better model -- so where's the evidence? Let's see your prediction for the transition/transversion ratio when comparing humans and gorillas, for example.Because you equivocate 'change over time' with Evolution.
This isn't quite right. The term "reptile" is not a phylogenetically correct, much like "fish." From Wikipedia:
Reptiles, the class Reptilia, are an evolutionary grade of animals, comprising today's turtles, crocodilians, snakes, lizards and tuatara, as well as many extinct groups. A reptile is any amniote (a tetrapod whose egg has an additional membrane, originally to allow them to lay eggs on land) that is neither a mammal nor a bird.[1] Unlike mammals, birds, and certain extinct reptiles, living reptiles have scales or scutes (rather than fur or feathers) and are cold-blooded. Advocates of phylogenetic nomenclature regard the traditional category 'Reptilia' to be invalid, and prefer to use the 'Amniota' or rather 'Sauropsida' category, because not all descendants of a common ancestor are included. However, in practice, these non-cladistic classifications, such as reptile, fish, and amphibian, remain in use by some biologists, especially in popular books written for a general audience. The historically combined study of reptiles and amphibians is called herpetology.
It would be better to say we are still "amniotes," rather than we are no longer reptiles. As I like to say here, you cannot escape your ancestry. Once an amniote, always an amniote. You have to remember that terminology like "reptile" and "fish" were created before the theory of evolution was accepted by the scientific community. Much of the original terminology has not caught up.
True. Darwinist creationism is simply another creationist viewpoint, but cloaked in the guise of 'science'. (for now).
Basically, yes.
Um, you do realize that this paper didn't actually demonstrate the existence of a problem, don't you? The author came up with a model of evolution; if the model is correct, then there is a puzzle that needs to be explained. But the model contains some highly unrealistic assumptions. It's a useful framework for thinking about some of the issues, but in no way does it accurately represent reality, or the expectations of a more realistic evolutionary model. In particular, both the mutational model and the treatment of soft selection make for easy mathematical handling, but have grave problems.Well Loudmouth, he's not gonna get published if he concludes Evolution couldn't happen. Those "possible resolutions" are highly speculative and unrealistic at best.What's funny is that you think this paper "sorted out" the problem.
Um, you do realize that this paper didn't actually demonstrate the existence of a problem, don't you? The author came up with a model of evolution; if the model is correct, then there is a puzzle that needs to be explained. But the model contains some highly unrealistic assumptions. It's a useful framework for thinking about some of the issues, but in no way does it accurately represent reality, or the expectations of a more realistic evolutionary model. In particular, both the mutational model and the treatment of soft selection make for easy mathematical handling, but have grave problems.
Mutations and natural selection don't cause change the way you
want it to or think it produces change. It only produces variation within
a species.
If it does what you think it does then you could simply change an
amoeba into a goat. Can you do that? If you can't then you're just
presenting a "what if".
I can only laugh listening to an evolutionist criticize models for "not accurately representing reality", yet they unquestioningly believe culled genetic accidents plus millions of years can turn fish into people.
Your mockery does not speak well of you. Look, you were the one who brought up this paper, not me. If the paper is a problem, it has to be because it is an accurate representation of reality as understood by evolutionary biology; otherwise, what's the point? But it isn't.I can only laugh listening to an evolutionist criticize models for "not accurately representing reality", yet they unquestioningly believe culled genetic accidents plus millions of years can turn fish into people.
Your mockery does not speak well of you.
Look, you were the one who brought up this paper, not me. If the paper is a problem
Other challenges you've failed to meet: (1) Explain why evolutionary biologists can make accurate predictions about genomes they've never seen while creationists can't. (Obviously, coming up with some accurate creationist predictions would be even better.) (2) Explain why my ability to make predictions about new genomes has anything to do with equivocating between "Evolution" and "change over time".
Because you equivocate 'change over time' with Evolution.
I just honestly find the way you evolutionists strain at gnats and swallow camels to be beyond ridiculous. You criticize things for 'lacking realism' yet eagerly accept the most far-fetched imaginations of the magical things you think nature can do over time.
I think it is a problem, a rather well-known problem that is part of a greater problem for evolution in general - that natural selection really doesn't work well at all unless it is dealing with significant fitness signals, and that goes for either the inability of eliminating accumulating slightly deleterious mutants, or the inability of fixating slightly "beneficial" mutants.
Your ambiguous claim about "predictions" is so loaded with baggage that I'm not going to waste my time trying to unpack it. If you have a particular argument to make, then why don't you make it instead of sending cryptic messages.
And you've failed to meet any of the challenges I've proposed in the last 20 pages of why Evolution fails as a scientific theory.
The researchers are using the assumption that these populations have existed for millions of years as evidence that Muller's ratchet (slightly deleterious mutational load) is not a problem.
An argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. Try again.
Also, you reject a theory based on observable and testable mechanisms while accepting a supernatural force that is neither observed nor testable. Perhaps you should focus on what you are supporting first.
You cut off the rest of sfs' post. Here is the rest.
"If the paper is a problem, it has to be because it is an accurate representation of reality as understood by evolutionary biology; otherwise, what's the point? But it isn't.
Now, if you really want to propose this paper as a problem for evolution, I'm happy to work through it with you. You can explain why each component of the model accurately represents evolutionary (or any other biologically based) expectations. That will require looking at the details. So, are you willing to step up and defend this paper, or are you going to rely on content-free gibes like your response here?"
So are you willing to put in some effort and defend the paper? If not, then what is your point? Why do you expect real scientists to do what you are unwilling to do? How can you complain scientists ignoring the paper when you are ignoring it?
Why should anyone put forth the effort of discussing science with you when you are so unwilling to discuss science?
Your fantasies are not challenges to real science.
It isn't assumed. Their age is measured.
If that is the only response you can must to that entire post, then you haven't dealt with the issue.
How can a mutation be slightly deleterious when it causes death? A lethal mutation is not slightly deleterious. It is strongly deleterious, and would be easily filtered out by natural selection.
If you want to claim that these mutations are not lethal, then there is no problem with mutational meltdown.
Again, someone may need to bump this post if they feel it is important to the discussion. I will let others be the judge.
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?