• 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.

Evolution via random mutations is impossible

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
No you're conflating issues. You said that we have observed DNA form naturally through reproduction. That is not what we have observed. We have observed it copied and recopied but not "formed" by any natural sources.

In this case I am referring to the replication of DNA as being part and parcel to its natural formation (via organic replication). And specifically that DNA is not an artificially manufactured human product.

If you're looking for the original origin of DNA, that is still being worked on. But there are known mechanisms about how things like DNA and RNA nucleotides could have originally formed.

I was pointing out that the Bible says that this is how it was created and that is what we do actually observe. Not assuming anything just pointing out the obvious observations and how they happen to agree with the book.

The Bible is completely silent on the subject of DNA. Which should be no surprise given that DNA wasn't discovered until centuries later.


They aren't looking for "intent or purpose". Rather, they're looking for narrow-band signals whereby the only known source are artificially manufactured radio transmitters. IOW, they are making an inference about how the signal is generated. The actual purpose of the signal is completely irrelevant.


You've just contradicted yourself. If per your claim we don't have a known source of DNA, then we can't assume anything about its origin being intelligent.
 
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟37,216.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That still doesn’t change the fact that you creationists have arbitrarily decided that genetic similarities don’t show relatedness.

Actually we are not saying genetic similarity doesn't show any evidence of relationship. What we are saying is that it is only helpful in those cases where we have evidence that there is a possibility for relationship. Here's what I'm talking about. We know humans create humans. This has been a common observation since the beginning of humanity. We know that all other kinds reproduce after their kind. This also...observation. So when we look at the genetic code between two human siblings and find they are nearly a match, and then look at the codes between two very different cultural groups and see close similarity but much more distance, we can make the logical conclusion that the closer the similarity is between humans, the closer related they are.


On the other hand we have never observed a common ancestor produce two major and different forms over vast amounts of time. Therefore it is not anymore logical to say that similarity between genes in chimps and genes in humans means they are related, than it would be to claim that a scale that accurately weighs a sub atomic particle can accurately weigh a freight train.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟37,216.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In this case I am referring to the replication of DNA as being part and parcel to its natural formation (via organic replication). And specifically that DNA is not an artificially manufactured human product.

And this is why I carefully gave two examples of specificity observed that scientists infer intelligence...that were not a product of humans either. Dolphin language and alien space signals have nothing to do with human manufacture.

If you're looking for the original origin of DNA, that is still being worked on. But there are known mechanisms about how things like DNA and RNA nucleotides could have originally formed.

I agree. However we clearly observe the very specified nature of DNA. Since to date we have only ever observed specificity form by intelligent sources it is not unreasonable to conclude DNA code had an intelligent source.

The Bible is completely silent on the subject of DNA. Which should be no surprise given that DNA wasn't discovered until centuries later.

It is not surprising. What is surprising are many scientific principles that are mentioned in the Bible that authors of the time could have known nothing about. But that's for another discussion. The Bible does talk about reproduction quite a bit and clearly says that kinds will only reproduce after their own kind. Something we still observe today with no evidence to the contrary.



Hehhh... I didn't say they were looking for intent AND purpose I said intent or purpose. In this case isn't a "manufactured" signal a signal with intention rather we know what it's intention is or not?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jjmcubbin

Active Member
Feb 3, 2018
193
160
35
Delhi
✟33,935.00
Country
India
Gender
Male
Faith
Hindu
Marital Status
Private
Do you see the contradiction?
You say since genomes of siblings are more closely related than two random persons, they are related.

Then you say that the same does not apply when the genomes of chimps and bonobos are more closely related to the human genome than any other species.
 
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟37,216.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

I thought I did a fairly good job of explaining why it is not a contradiction. If you have a bathroom scale that says you weigh 1000 lbs. You would suspect it was not working correctly. If you put a pencil on the scale and it read 0.015 pounds you could not say that the scale was working simply because it gave the correct weight of a pencil. But if you took a weight off of your bench press and set it on the scale you now have something of known weight to test the "test," so to speak. We know that humans produce humans (that's the known) so if our genetic "scale" between one human and another says they are closely related, we have good logical reasons to believe the scale is correct. But that logic doesn't hold up with the genetics between two different forms. We do not have the "known weight" principle to trust the test and are only assuming that because it holds true between two of the same form that it will hold true for two different forms. That is saying that because your bathroom scale weighs a pencil correctly it can weigh a bus correctly. We don't "know" this from a scientific stand point and we can't know this.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

If the field of genetics only dealt with vague generalities you might have a point.

Of course that isn’t the case.
 
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟37,216.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If the field of genetics only dealt with vague generalities you might have a point.

Of course that isn’t the case.

So you are saying there is some other reason to believe similar genes between chimps and humans equates to relationship? Some "known weight" that demonstrates this to be the case? Please do go on.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So you are saying there is some other reason to believe similar genes between chimps and humans equates to relationship? Some "known weight" that demonstrates this to be the case? Please do go on.

No, that’s not what I said, maybe I didn’t express my thoughts adequately.

My point was that tales about bathroom scale calibrations are meaningless (outside of a bathroom scale calibration forum of course) in a discussion about genetics.
 
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟166,950.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
https://migration.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/animalsevolution_lg.jpeg

Sorry it’s in German but German and English also share enough of a common ancestry that you should be able to understand it.

Here’s how animals are related . You do have to look at juveniles or fetal forms to see common ancestry and this is something Darwin would have been aware of . DNA and genetics only confirm this . So stop spouting your favorite creationist lie about no evidence for common descent between major forms because this is animal life at its most basic
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Sorry to hear that. One cannot determine specificity of something without knowing what it does.

LOL!

So what good is the ID concept?

It cannot predict specificity? It has no means of finding specificity unless the IDist is told what it does?

GAME SHOW HOST: The question is xxx?

CONTESTANT: Um, I don't know - tell me the answer, and then I can tell you!

GAME SHOW HOST: You must be an Intelligent Design Advocate...


How specific and how do you know?

Your precision is lacking. You seem to be making an argument from analogy (...make the connection from a previous experience...). Analogies are not evidence.
Good for you. Perhaps you should save such questions for a geneticist who is also an IDist. I couldn't tell you what a line written in Spanish said. Does that mean Spanish language is not a specified language?

It means that you should not be telling people that you can speak Spanish - but only if others tell you what the words mean first.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I know right? Most evolutionists hate discussing the topic of abiogenesis.
Hate it?

I will discuss it - like the amount of research that is being done on the subject in contrast to how much research creationists do on Creation.

I will discuss how creationist hate to admit that abiogenesis and evolution are separate topics, yet love to conflate them because they think they will have more leverage since there is less known about abiogenesis.

I will discuss that there is evidence for the abiotic synthesis of many of the precursor molecules for those utilized in the metabolism and 'construction' of living things, whereas creationists think that a deity speaking is a real mechanism for turning dust into these same molecules.
 
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That's because every experiment performed to date which produces proteins, is totally incompatible with every other process, and you need them all to start at the same time. Sort of leaves them with a bunch of goo that does nothing.

LOL!

Citation please.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I wrote to you before that I had read several of the previous threads in which you pull out your repetitive arguments and just re-post them no matter what the previous attempts had accomplished (nothing - your claims appeared to have been demolished each time). I have no intention of re-hashing the same arguments you've tried before, so I am not going to respond to this right now.
 
Reactions: VirOptimus
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Snipped the ridiculous attempts at 'probability calculations' -

I suggest that you read this:

EXOBIOLOGY: An Interview with Stanley L. Miller

In it, Miller actually explains why he did his experiments.

Creationist have misrepresented him, his motives, his claims and conclusions, etc. It has to be purposeful, IMO.


After you read that and correct your missive, perhaps you can impress us with all of the great creation-related research creation scientists have done.

And by creation-related research, I do not mean pathetic and dishonest attempts to poke holes in evolution, I mean actual research into creation.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Well then don't but what your ignoring is the burden of proof, particularly with regards to brain related genes. Generalizations about mutation plus selection doesn't change what the fossil evidence and genomic comparisons are telling us. Brain related genes had to undergo a massive overhaul requiring hundreds, if not thousands of mutations in hundreds if not thousands of genes. That's not my conclusion, that's from Bruce Lahn. There are also 60 de novo genes that are unique to the human genome inextricably linked to the size and complexity of the human brain as compared to apes. 2 1/2 million years ago our hominid ancestors would have had a cranial capacity would have been under 600 cc, then about 1.9 million years ago with Turkana Boy and the Homo erectus fossils they are approaching modern human proportions.

Dismiss it, ignore it if you please, it's a typical response. I repeat those facts because as of right now they have went unanswered and calling them 'demolished' is begging the question of proof on your hands and knees.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Always analogies.


Here is why you analogies fail (I will probably get dinged from spam, as I have felt the need to re-post this a dozen times - but creationists keep ignoring it):

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Dismiss it, ignore it if you please, it's a typical response. I repeat those facts because as of right now they have went unanswered and calling them 'demolished' is begging the question of proof on your hands and knees.

Rather than re-hash, I simply searched:

mark, did you forget all the other times you posted this same stuff about your "3 fold expansion from earlier apes to humans" only to be shown all the intermediate transitional fossils that fill in your imagined "gap"? We could go through that all again, in addition to the genes themselves and all the over evidence - but after person after person has shown you the obvious and clear evidence time after time, year after year, I have to suspect that you'll ignore it yet again.

Then, it seems likely your responses will again be filled with empty, evidence free trash talk about shooting ghosts in a barrel on their hand and knees.

I'm just hoping you don't hide relevant data again.......

In Christ-





And one thing regarding your quote of Tomkins - he was once a decent researcher, now he appears to be little more than a carnival barker.

His claim "Perhaps the most striking discovery is that three of the four genes (SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D) are completely unique to humans and found in no other mammal species, not even apes…" is laughably incorrect:

Gene: SRGAP2B (ENSG00000196369) - Orthologues - Homo sapiens - Ensembl genome browser 92

"The genes do not look duplicated at all…"

He says no paralogs? Also wrong:

Gene: SRGAP2B (ENSG00000196369) - Paralogue alignment - Homo sapiens - Ensembl genome browser 92

And of course he wants to pretend 'creation', right?

Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication
Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication

SUMMARY

Gene duplication is an important source of phenotypic change and adaptive evolution. We use a novel genomic approach to identify highly identical sequence missing from the reference genome, confirming the cortical development gene Slit-Robo Rho GTPase activating protein 2 (SRGAP2) duplicated three times in humans. We show that the promoter and first nine exons of SRGAP2 duplicated from 1q32.1 (SRGAP2A) to 1q21.1 (SRGAP2B) ~3.4 million years ago (mya). Two larger duplications later copied SRGAP2B to chromosome 1p12 (SRGAP2C) and to proximal 1q21.1 (SRGAP2D), ~2.4 and ~1 mya, respectively. Sequence and expression analysis shows SRGAP2C is the most likely duplicate to encode a functional protein and among the most fixed human-specific duplicate genes. Our data suggest a mechanism where incomplete duplication created a novel function —at birth, antagonizing parental SRGAP2 function 2–3 mya a time corresponding to the transition from Australopithecus to Homo and the beginning of neocortex expansion.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
In further support, I offer this debate:

mark kennedy v. Loudmouth: Do chimps and humans share a common ancestor?

These threads started by you:

Is the Human Brain a Null Hypothesis for Darwinian Evolution?

Darwinian Theator of the Mind: AKA Human Brain Evolution

And this very telling post - from a fellow Christian:






Same basic arguments - not once ignored, but multiple times refuted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married


Allow me to point out that what I was asking you to provide citations for was this claim of yours:

"That's because every experiment performed to date which produces proteins, is totally incompatible with every other process, and you need them all to start at the same time. Sort of leaves them with a bunch of goo that does nothing."

Bashing the RNA world hypothesis, I am pretty sure, does not encompass "EVERY EXPERIMENT PERFORMED" which produces proteins.

Tell me again where the original Asian came from?
 
Upvote 0