Evolution's False Doctrines: i.e. Punctuated Equilibrium Etc.

[mark kennedy]

Then surely you can provide the mechanism?

Begging the question fallacy.

And no proposed mechanism. And no evidence. And contrary evidence.

Speculations and brainstorms are great, providing they lead somewhere.

Its called Mendelian genetics, you wouldn't understand.

 

[tas8831]

Its called Mendelian genetics, you wouldn't understand.

That is no answer.

Mendelian genetics is no friend of ultra-short term hyper-evolution.

Your response tells us all we need to know, and what all of us on the science side have suspected all along.

In addition, I saw you wrote this in another thread in response the the question "Would you please tell me what an "allele" is, in words I can understand?":

Originally it was a trait, with Mendel there were seven he was trying to control. As science progressed they came to realize there were two copies of the gene, one was dominant the other recessive expressed in a 3 to 1 ratio. Mendel got lucky because the genes responsible for the traits were either on different chromosomes or far enough apart they could still interact. Technically an allel is a variation in the code but it generally implies a trait expressed by a gene. Thats about as simple as I can make it.​

Simple as in incorrect.

Allele never meant "trait", and Mendel never used the term. He couldn't have, since it was not coined until the early 20th century and it is actually short for 'allelomorph':

al·lele
/əˈlēl/
noun
Genetics
noun: allele; plural noun: alleles

1. one of two or more alternative forms of a gene that arise by mutation and are found at the same place on a chromosome.

Origin

1930s: from German Allel, abbreviation of allelomorph.
​

Your entire 'explanation' is bogus. Which in part leads to an understanding of why your genetics claims are naive and repetitive, despite having your foundational errors explained to you for, literally, years.

 

[mark kennedy]

That is no answer.

Mendelian genetics is no friend of ultra-short term hyper-evolution.

Your response tells us all we need to know, and what all of us on the science side have suspected all along.

In addition, I saw you wrote this in another threadin response the the question "Would you please tell me what an "allele" is, in words I can understand?":

Originally it was a trait, with Mendel there were seven he was trying to control. As science progressed they came to realize there were two copies of the gene, one was dominant the other recessive expressed in a 3 to 1 ratio. Mendel got lucky because the genes responsible for the traits were either on different chromosomes or far enough apart they could still interact. Technically an allel is a variation in the code but it generally implies a trait expressed by a gene. Thats about as simple as I can make it.​

Simple as is incorrect.

Allele never meant "trait", and Mendel never used the term. He couldn't have, since it was not coined until the early 20th century and it is actually short for 'allelomorph':

al·lele
/əˈlēl/
noun
Genetics
noun: allele; plural noun: alleles

1. one of two or more alternative forms of a gene that arise by mutation and are found at the same place on a chromosome.

Origin

1930s: from German Allel, abbreviation of allelomorph.
​

Your entire 'explanation' is bogus. Which in part leads to an understanding of why your genetics claims are naive and repetitive, despite having your foundational errors explained to you for, literally, years.

All you are actually doing is telling me I'm wrong no matter what I say. The way I deal with this kind of dredging up of animosity, aka trolling, is to respond with something I know is irrefutable. Mendel picked 7 traits he was wanting to minipulate, the goal was to develop hybrids. The University of Breno under CP Napp recruited a young man who showed promise in horticulter, Gregor Mendel. The Austrian Hungry empire was the largest government was the most powerfull in Europe and Mendel aftrr earnig an undergraduate degree imn ministry did some 10,000 meticulas experiments over three years cross pollinating pea plants. His results would go virtually unnoticed until 1901 with the rise of chromosome theory. His ratio of 3\1 of dominant\recessive gene was the scientific moodel that propelled genetics ahead by leaps and bounds for a hundred years, culminating with the publication of the initial Sequence of the Human Genome.

It all comes down to alternate genes and the didn't need to be produced, some undoubtedly were, the creatures emerging from the Ark already had enormous gene pools with vast potential for adaptive evolution on an epic scale.

One thing is obvious, you have never and will never learn the subject matter. I'm not throwing out something obscure, this is based on the statement of the Human Genome project in their landmark paper publish in 2001 in Nature. I just like to see if someone like you has bothered to learn the basics and you obviously don't realize the Mendel had never seen a gene, all he knew about were the expressed traits. Thus evolution is the change of traits in populations over time.

 

[tas8831]

All you are actually doing is telling me I'm wrong no matter what I say.

Given the things you claim, that is correct.

Were you to make a claim that was verifiable or at least not immediately falsifiable, then I would not do so.

Or even if you for once provided supporting evidence of some sort. But you do not do so, and have not done so here, either.

Merely asserting that Medelian genetics supports the notion of post-flood hyperevolution explains nothing as to HOW that works.

The way I deal with this kind of dredging up of animosity, aka trolling,

No, it is not trolling, aka or otherwise. Asking you to support your claims that were presented with no support, or asking you to correct your errors, or asking you to explain the mechanism for your proposals is NOT trolling. The only people that hide behind such accusations are people that realize that talked themselves into a corner.

Not interested in your whining and dodging. A distorted, contorted 'history' of turn of the last century Europe presented in a sad effort to justify your baseless claim as to how Mendelian genetics proves flood genetics and to escape the easily-documented fact that you do not even know what an allele is a joke. But not a very funny one.

 

[mark kennedy]

Given the things you claim, that is correct.

Were you to make a claim that was verifiable or at least not immediately falsifiable, then I would not do so.

Or even if you for once provided supporting evidence of some sort. But you do not do so, and have not done so here, either.

Merely asserting that Medelian genetics supports the notion of post-flood hyperevolution explains nothing as to HOW that works.



No, it is not trolling, aka or otherwise. Asking you to support your claims that were presented with no support, or asking you to correct your errors, or asking you to explain the mechanism for your proposals is NOT trolling. The only people that hide behind such accusations are people that realize that talked themselves into a corner.

Not interested in your whining and dodging. A distorted, contorted 'history' of turn of the last century Europe presented in a sad effort to justify your baseless claim as to how Mendelian genetics proves flood genetics and to escape the easily-documented fact that you do not even know what an allele is a joke. But not a very funny one.

I got nothing to dodge, you can't be taken seriously. You haven't the slightest interest in the life sciences or evolution. You a relic from the culture wars that ended back in Dover. There used to be an army of guys like you swarming creationists like killer bees. Now it's just a little mild trolling here, not enough to even bother with a report button. Mendelian genetics is more then adequet to explain adaptive evolution since the flood. Darwinian evolution has a much larger burden of proof, you want that met you are going to have to do your own research. I wont be holding my breath in the meantime.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I got nothing to dodge, you can't be taken seriously. You haven't the slightest interest in the life sciences or evolution. You a relic from the culture wars that ended back in Dover. There used to be an army of guys like you swarming creationists like killer bees. Now it's just a little mild trolling here, not enough to even bother with a report button. Mendelian genetics is more then adequet to explain adaptive evolution since the flood. Darwinian evolution has a much larger burden of proof, you want that met you are going to have to do your own research. I wont be holding my breath in the meantime.

Not even close. You see scientists can and have measured the rate that new genes show up. It is nowhere near rapid enough to explain the flood story. In fact we have specific examples of species that show what happens when the number of a species is greatly reduced and we have even one species that got to the level of Noah's family roughly 10,000 years ago and they are still suffering from that event. Cheetahs are only one of the many refutations of the flood story.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not even close. You see scientists can and have measured the rate that new genes show up. It is nowhere near rapid enough to explain the flood story. In fact we have specific examples of species that show what happens when the number of a species is greatly reduced and we have even one species that got to the level of Noah's family roughly 10,000 years ago and they are still suffering from that event. Cheetahs are only one of the many refutations of the flood story.

So people keep saying, and yet we have over 100 different breeds of dogs from just wolves..... in a few thousand years.....

Sadly the Cheetahs suffered a close extinction event AFTER the flood which further reduced their variability. You just think it happened 12,000 years ago because of flawed dating that doesn't take Relativistic effects into account..... It happened much more recently....

And is a product of natural circumstances:

Cheetah - Wikipedia

"High mortality rates have been recorded in the Serengeti. In a 1994 study, nearly 77% of litters died before eight weeks of birth, and nearly 83% of those alive could not make it to adolescence (14 weeks). Lions emerged as the major predator of juveniles, accounting for nearly 78% of the deaths. The study concluded that the survival rate of cubs until weaning was a mere 4.8%. This was attributed to the open terrain of the region, which does not allow cheetahs to conceal themselves. Cheetah cubs face higher mortality than most other large mammals."

And man:

"In the past, the cheetah ranged across vast stretches in Asia, from the Arabian Peninsula in the west to the Indian subcontinent in the east, and as far north as the Caspian and Aral Seas. Today, the cheetah has been extirpated {root out and destroy completely. Definition added} in the majority of its historic range, except Iran and possibly a few areas in Afghanistan and Turkmenistan."

Mankind himself is responsible along with Lions for the almost extinction of the Cheetah, not any genetic bottleneck caused by the flood.......

Accept reality and stop with the strawmen...

 

[Subduction Zone]

So people keep saying, and yet we have over 100 different breeds of dogs from just wolves..... in a few thousand years.....

Sadly the Cheetahs suffered a close extinction event AFTER the flood which further reduced their variability. You just think it happened 12,000 years ago because of flawed dating that doesn't take Relativistic effects into account..... It happened much more recently....

Sorry, started laughing here too much. There was no flood and the Cheetah is excellent evidence against it. If there was a flood then every species would be as closely related as the Cheetah. In fact even more so. The cheetahs got down to less than 10 breeding individuals. The flood means that any unclean animal got down to two. Cheetahs got down to the number that Noah and his family had. We would be as closely related as the cheetah.

You are clearly not ready to discuss the theory of evolution, we need to go over simpler concepts first.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sorry, started laughing here too much. There was no flood and the Cheetah is excellent evidence against it. If there was a flood then every species would be as closely related as the Cheetah. In fact even more so. The cheetahs got down to less than 10 breeding individuals. The flood means that any unclean animal got down to two. Cheetahs got down to the number that Noah and his family had. We would be as closely related as the cheetah.

You are clearly not ready to discuss the theory of evolution, we need to go over simpler concepts first.

And we already found out why Cheetah's got down to so few, but you studiously ignored that mankind hunted them down and exterminated them in almost all of their natural habitat, and the Lions did the rest.

But then ignoring things is the evolutionists second best friend.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your belief is so easily proven wrong it isnt even funny.

Tell me, how many Chinook were in existence?

"The breed derives principally from one male ancestor born in 1917, named "Chinook", who was Walden's lead dog and stud. "Chinook" derived from a crossbreeding of husky stock from the Peary North Pole expedition with a large, tawny Mastiff-like male....."

...."Control of the core breeding stock passed from Walden to Julia Lombard and from her to Perry Greene in the late 1940s. Greene, a noted outdoorsman, bred Chinooks in Waldoboro, Maine, for many years until his death in 1963."

Think about it for a minute. You don't get pure bred dogs by continuously breeding them with others not like them. Shall we count the numbers of pure bred breeds?????

 

[Subduction Zone]

And we already found out why Cheetah's got down to so few, but you studiously ignored that mankind hunted them down and exterminated them in almost all of their natural habitat, and the Lions did the rest.

But then ignoring things is the evolutionists second best friend.....

We do not know if that was the cause or not. That is a guess by you. We do know that roughly 10,000 years ago that there numbers did fall to almost an extinction level. Why did man go after cheetah and not lions or panthers? What you are ignoring is the fact that if there was a flood then all animals should be like the cheetah and have an undeniable near extinction bottleneck. Those should be the rule instead of the rare exception. The fact that you cannot get an organ transplant form a random person off the street, as cheetahs can, refutes the flood story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your belief is so easily proven wrong it isnt even funny.

Tell me, how many Chinook were in existence?

"The breed derives principally from one male ancestor born in 1917, named "Chinook", who was Walden's lead dog and stud. "Chinook" derived from a crossbreeding of husky stock from the Peary North Pole expedition with a large, tawny Mastiff-like male....."

...."Control of the core breeding stock passed from Walden to Julia Lombard and from her to Perry Greene in the late 1940s. Greene, a noted outdoorsman, bred Chinooks in Waldoboro, Maine, for many years until his death in 1963."

Think about it for a minute. You don't get pure bred dogs by continuously breeding them with others not like them. Shall we count the numbers of pure bred breeds?????

Please don't conflate artificial selection with natural selection. Though similar there are marked differences.

 

[Heissonear]

Please don't conflate artificial selection with natural selection. Though similar there are marked differences.

Natural selection does not happen, since evolution never happened.

Variations of breeds by natural processes and environmental conditions changes creatures within Kinds.

It amazes me to hear people without God in this world only see things around them as if there are only natural processes causing what we see around us.

Set God aside, and try to see how things are and why they are. That does not work; it is only mens interpretation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Natural selection does not happen, since evolution never happened.

Variations of breeds by natural processes and environmental conditions changes creatures within Kinds.

It amazes me to hear people without God in this world only see things around them as if there are only natural processes causing what we see around us.

Set God aside, and try to see how things are and why they are. That does not work; it is only mens interpretation.

Oh my!

Natural selection is directly observable. You know better than that. Denying the obvious and trying to use that to support a circular argument is an epic fail

Why does reality scare you so much? The fact that you are the product of evolution does not refute the story of Jesus. Genesis is allegory at best. It is not historical. If Christianity is correct it is correct in spite of Genesis, not because of Genesis.

 

[tas8831]

I got nothing to dodge, you can't be taken seriously. You haven't the slightest interest in the life sciences or evolution. You a relic from the culture wars that ended back in Dover. There used to be an army of guys like you swarming creationists like killer bees. Now it's just a little mild trolling here, not enough to even bother with a report button. Mendelian genetics is more then adequet to explain adaptive evolution since the flood. Darwinian evolution has a much larger burden of proof, you want that met you are going to have to do your own research. I wont be holding my breath in the meantime.

So, no actual explanation as to how Mendelian genetics supports post-flood hyperevolution.

Got it.

 

[tas8831]

Sadly the Cheetahs suffered a close extinction event AFTER the flood which further reduced their variability. You just think it happened 12,000 years ago because of flawed dating that doesn't take Relativistic effects into account..... It happened much more recently....

Relatavistic affects?

 

[Jimmy D]

Natural selection does not happen, since evolution never happened.

Variations of breeds by natural processes and environmental conditions changes creatures within Kinds.

Lol

What do you think you’ve just described if not natural selection in action?

You can thank Darwin for that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

For me this whole subject is upside dowm and backwards. I believe in an accelerated version of adaptive evolution that can happen in a few generations. Think about it, 4000 years ago every ancestor for reptiles, birds and mammals emergeged from the Ark. From that relatively small number of living creatures we get all the diversity we see today. Now logistics aside, that sounds like a lot of adaptive evolution fwithout the endless backing up of Darwinism. All the way back to the DNA or RNA first chicken and egg scenerios. My theory is they had much larger gene pools and nearly pristine genomes, the adaptive radiation would have been epic. But for some reason people think creationists are antievolution, when I just have a much shorter time line and a different starting point.

In other words: slow and gradual evolution, consistent with the many independent lines of evidence from various independent scientific fields - no. But fast and hyper evolution, to the point of being physically impossible and in complete contradiction of the actual evidence: sure!

Amazing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I got nothing to dodge, you can't be taken seriously. You haven't the slightest interest in the life sciences or evolution. You a relic from the culture wars that ended back in Dover. There used to be an army of guys like you swarming creationists like killer bees. Now it's just a little mild trolling here, not enough to even bother with a report button. Mendelian genetics is more then adequet to explain adaptive evolution since the flood. Darwinian evolution has a much larger burden of proof, you want that met you are going to have to do your own research. I wont be holding my breath in the meantime.

Darwinian evolution: +200.000 peer reviewed scientific publications
Post flood hyper evolution: 0 papers

I'ld say "advantage, darwin", but really... it is "game, set, match... darwin". And it's been like that for over 150 years now.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Natural selection does not happen, since evolution never happened.

Awesome.

So no matter your genetic makeup, no matter how "fit" you are - your chances of survival and reproductions are universally the same.

Fantastic.

So it doesn't matter if a polar bear has white or black fur. They both have equal chance of catching prey to get the required food for survival.

Super.