Help with a genetics claim...

[pitabread]

Not randomly.....

Okay. And?

Explain how alleles are created with respect to extant populations if not via random mutations. How is it done?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Okay. And?

Explain how alleles are created with respect to extant populations if not via random mutations. How is it done?

I already have, you simply refuse to accept science....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28568290

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one [allele] introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

"New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

If you didn't ignore the data, you would have your answer......

 

[pitabread]

I already have, you simply refuse to accept science....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28568290

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one [allele] introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

"New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

If you didn't ignore the data, you would have your answer......

Um, that has nothing to do with the creation of alleles. They are talking about alleles introduced to a population from another population. But it has nothing to do with the origin of the allele itself. The originating allele would have still been the result of a mutation.

Now, if you're arguing otherwise (i.e. that the allele *wasn't* the result of a mutation), then you need to explain where it came from.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Um, that has nothing to do with the creation of alleles. They are talking about alleles introduced to a population from another population. But it has nothing to do with the origin of the allele itself. The originating allele would have still been the result of a mutation.

Now, if you're arguing otherwise (i.e. that the allele *wasn't* the result of a mutation), then you need to explain where it came from.

just as if you are arguing it was the result of a mutation, you need to explain how a copy error incorrectly copied something that didn't exist??????? So far all everyone has done is show mutations can only change something that already exists......... into the same thing that already exists......

My argument is that they were created fully formed and have degraded over time because of mutations, hence the fraction of genomes that no longer have any known function because of mutations or have been deleted.....

 

[pitabread]

My argument is that they were created fully formed

Right. And I'm asking how this was done. We keep going in circles here. This would be a lot easier if you just answered the question.

Explain how alleles were created "fully formed".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Right. And I'm asking how this was done. We keep going in circles here. This would be a lot easier if you just answered the question.

Explain how alleles were created "fully formed".

And we will continue to go in circles.

Explain how mutations mutated something that didn't exist????? I agree, it would be a lot easier to totally destroy your theory if you just answered the question. But then that's why evolutionists never state their definitions and then when they do backpedal from following them. Just as we see countless times with species.........


But I already answered, you just didn't listen... Since man was created out of the "dust" of the earth, then given life, they were formed the same way molecules were formed, by the Laws of the Creator. Chemical and electromagnetic..... There is no difference between the protons, neutrons and electrons in dust than the ones that make up the genome.....

But since I am using known laws of physics, the only part that can't be fit is the part that makes the same protons, neutron and electrons that make up dust alive. But then that's why you need a creator. It's the same hurdle you can't get around.

 

[pitabread]

But I already answered, you just didn't listen... Since man was created out of the "dust" of the earth, then given life, they were formed the same way molecules were formed, by the Laws of the Creator. Chemical and electromagnetic..... There is no difference between the protons, neutrons and electrons in dust than the ones that make up the genome.....

But how are they formed into fully formed alleles? What is the process in question?

But since I am using known laws of physics, the only part that can't be fit is the part that makes the same protons, neutron and electrons that make up dust alive. But then that's why you need a creator.

Sure. And I'm asking how they would have created fully formed alleles. Explain how this happened.

 

[Brightmoon]

Not randomly.....

. How would you know?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

. How would you know?

Ever see something form randomly? No, everything follows physical laws....... you may simply be unaware of all the variables and call it random, but that's just lack of knowledge...

 

[pitabread]

No, everything follows physical laws....... you may simply be unaware of all the variables and call it random, but that's just lack of knowledge...

Could this not apply to the origin of life (i.e. from chemical precursors)?

 

[Brightmoon]

Ever see something form randomly? No, everything follows physical laws....... you may simply be unaware of all the variables and call it random, but that's just lack of knowledge...

Sure, shuffle a deck of cards !

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Could this not apply to the origin of life (i.e. from chemical precursors)?

If life continued to arise, since those same chemical processes are always occurring.....

But it doesn’t.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sure, shuffle a deck of cards !

https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/20002.4-6.shtml

“In 1992, Bayer and Diaconis showed that after seven random riffle shuffles of a deck of 52 cards, every configuration is nearly equally likely. Shuffling more than this does not significantly increase the "randomness"; shuffle less than this and the deck is "far" from random.”

So if it can be shown mathematically that it takes a specific amount of shuffles to produce nearly every result, not more, not less, then it isn’t really random but requires a specific number of shuffles.......

That each result is likely does not mean randomness, just an unknown in the variable of how the deck is divided. If you divided the deck evenly, or knew the division, you could calculate the exact outcome beforehand.... so you just don’t know two of the variables, the size of each half before the shuffle.

 

[tas8831]

Remember that you can't take one creationist and generalize their opinions to all creationists. Every creationist must have a chance to try falsifying your claims.

Perhaps, but I have been reading these sorts of debates and taking part in them for a few decades, and in my experience, the positions of creationists in general tend to fall into a couple of 'zones' - the Dunning-Kruger zone, the TRUE believer zone, and the I-have-hope-for-this-one zone. There are a few outlier zones, too. But about 90-98% fall into the first 2 zones. Lots of overlap there, anyway.

Sorry, I couldn't find studies on dogs' genetic distances, only ones proving that only a couple genes cause big differences in their appearance. I am not really sure about human races vs. dog breeds. Races appear to be only a social construct, because dogs are bred through natural selection while humans are not.

Did you mean artificial selection? While there are certainly social implications and underpinnings for how we look at 'race' today, there are definitely population genetics explanations for the various 'ethnicities' of humans living today. If it were not the case that different groups of people existed, then there would be no basis for even the social concepts of 'race' (we would - and do - find other reasons to hate each other). A decent physical anthropologist can identify the probable 'race' of a skull based on a few morphological characters - whose presence or absence is ultimately linked to their genotype.

In creation science baramins are the original types of animals, plants, fungi etc. God created in the beginning. These had potential for great genetic variation.

What is the evidence biblical or otherwise, for the above claims?
'After their kind' seems to imply no change, at least to me.

Before the Fall, evolution couldn't happen because there was no death and thus no natural selection. But after it, these baramins began to differ into the species we know today (and some extinct). As an example, all big cats such as tigers and lions, and domestic cats, have their evolutionary roots in a single kind of cat-baramin.

Evidence?

 

[tas8831]

No, that is your false assumption that only mutation leads to alleles.

But that is what is indicated in the Grant paper that you like to quote. It is also what you will find in any legitimate scientific source, such as the several I have linked to and quoted for you.

It is the mixing of individuals with non-similar allometries.

LOL!

Tell me what allometries are.

Never mind...

You are a spectacular example of what is mentioned here:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/an-explanation-for-over-confident-creationists.8080311/


I am taking a break from wasting the time to respond to you with references and the like. You quote and cite papers like you actually understand them. Your very own references have refuted your assertions time and again, and you just keep doing the same thing over and over. Unteachable.

 

[tas8831]

And we will continue to go in circles.

Explain how mutations mutated something that didn't exist????? I agree, it would be a lot easier to totally destroy your theory if you just answered the question. But then that's why evolutionists never state their definitions and then when they do backpedal from following them. Just as we see countless times with species.........


But I already answered, you just didn't listen... Since man was created out of the "dust" of the earth, then given life, they were formed the same way molecules were formed, by the Laws of the Creator. Chemical and electromagnetic..... There is no difference between the protons, neutrons and electrons in dust than the ones that make up the genome.....

But since I am using known laws of physics, the only part that can't be fit is the part that makes the same protons, neutron and electrons that make up dust alive. But then that's why you need a creator. It's the same hurdle you can't get around.

So you use ancient middle eastern myths as your
'evidence'.

In other words, you are too ignorant of the modern world and science to grasp how out of your league you are, intellectually.

Still waiting for you to explain where Asian and African came from originally if all 'races' are the product of hybridization.

Never mind answering (you never do,m anyway), I no longer plan to waste my time correcting your laughably pathetic errors and ignorance, at least not for a while. I get more satisfaction and less frustration trying to train my cat to play fetch.

 

[tas8831]

I already have, you simply refuse to accept science....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28568290

"We may add one more difference between a mutated allele and one [allele] introduced by hybridization. The mutated allele has been altered randomly, whereas the one [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."

....

I really cannot believe you are STILL trying to claim, like some spoiled child stamping his feet, that alleles are not produced via mutation.

Boggles the mind how invincibly ignorant creationists can be.

 

[tas8831]

just as if you are arguing it was the result of a mutation, you need to explain how a copy error incorrectly copied something that didn't exist???????

Are you for real?

The copy error RESULTS in the addition, deletion, or changing of one or more nucleotides.

The copying happens when a cell divides.

You really should not be discussing genetics seeing as how you do not understand it at an elementary level.

Have a little pride. Or integrity.

So far all everyone has done is show mutations can only change something that already exists......... into the same thing that already exists......

Ummm....


If, during replication, a CHANGE is introduced into something that exists, then you end up with TWO things, at least one of which is now DIFFERENT.

This is freshman level stuff.

Why are you so ignorant about this? You've been blabbering about this general topic for what, a couple of years? And you STILL have no grasp at all on basic genetics principles?

My argument is that they were created fully formed and have degraded over time because of mutations, hence the fraction of genomes that no longer have any known function because of mutations or have been deleted.....

Then your argument is crap, for each time you try to support that (not very often - you usually rely on repeated already-falsified assertions) notion, the very sources you provide undermine it.

And you are too ignorant/bombastic/desperate to admit it.

 

[pitabread]

If life continued to arise, since those same chemical processes are always occurring.....

But it doesn’t.

The problem is that existing life forms consume organic material. So once you have a bunch of life swimming around eating everything, it reduces the opportunity for new life to form without being consumed.

On top of that, if life did end up arising multiple times, finding it would be a challenge once again given the sheer abundance of life on Earth.

 

[Fish14]

Perhaps, but I have been reading these sorts of debates and taking part in them for a few decades, and in my experience, the positions of creationists in general tend to fall into a couple of 'zones' - the Dunning-Kruger zone, the TRUE believer zone, and the I-have-hope-for-this-one zone. There are a few outlier zones, too. But about 90-98% fall into the first 2 zones. Lots of overlap there, anyway.

Believing in creation is very reasonable. Nothing can be proven for sure, because interpretation and assumptions affect our fallible reasoning. I think creation is a lot more reasonable than evolutionary history and thus accept it.
Which zone do I fall in? Hmm... I don't know much about geology and biology so it could be Dunning-Kruger, but on the other hand, I admit not knowing much. True believer zone? Yes, I truly believe in creation. I-have-hope-for-this-one? Not sure what you mean with this.

Did you mean artificial selection? While there are certainly social implications and underpinnings for how we look at 'race' today, there are definitely population genetics explanations for the various 'ethnicities' of humans living today. If it were not the case that different groups of people existed, then there would be no basis for even the social concepts of 'race' (we would - and do - find other reasons to hate each other). A decent physical anthropologist can identify the probable 'race' of a skull based on a few morphological characters - whose presence or absence is ultimately linked to their genotype.

It is clear that there are different groups of people, but they are very similar, after all. Races are physically nearly the same and only slightly different in shape, color, etc. More important is not to be racist and understand we all are humans. By the way, I believe the meaning of life is to praise God and simply enjoy life with other people. This includes making life enjoyable for others and racism is the opposite.

What is the evidence biblical or otherwise, for the above claims?
'After their kind' seems to imply no change, at least to me.

In the hypothetical (at least to you) scenario where created animal kinds do not breed with each other, but speciation still happens, there simply must be different groups of species that share one kind as ancestors. So if the Genesis account is true history, baramins exist. Whether it's true or not is another question, one where interpretation and assumptions cause people to divide into creationists and "evolutionists".