How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[Loudmouth]

Hold on, you're getting ahead of yourself.
it is certain that the not-mutated organism will survive.

That claim is completely refuted by these two experiments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria–Delbrück_experiment

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC169282/

In those experiments, only the mutants survived on the selection plates.

Most mutations will not procreate.

There is not a human alive who is not a mutant. Only mutants procreate.

You still have to make a case for beneficial mutations, that become dominant and bring an advantage or new trait.

They are among the 40 million mutations that separate chimps and humans. They are the mutations that make humans what they are. They are the mutations responsible for our bigger brain, upright stance, and the other human features.

 

[Loudmouth]

i do now, it's a 'stamboom', so stop crying.

Then please explain why separate creation would produce this pattern of shared and derived features.

there's a difference between disagreeing and not understanding.

For you, it is not understanding.

So i suggest you stuff your bluff.Gotcha!
it's with respect to DNA, which is data.
you know what data is, don't you?
it is a language with characters that mean something.
And the idea of junk DNA was debunked some 9 years ago, so there.

Yet another example of you not understanding biology. DNA is not data. DNA is a polymer that acts as a substrate for protein activity in the nucleus of a cell.

Also, junk DNA is still very much alive. For example, this 2014 paper demonstrates that only 8.2% of the human genome is under constraint:

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004525

The other 93.7% of the human genome shows no evidence of selectable function (i.e. junk DNA).

Iḿ not taking the blame for your lack of interest in these things that make your belief-system tremble.

Your lack of evidence is not my problem.

Same answer.
You have no excuse.

I have the best reason. You can't produce a shred of evidence to back your claims.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Selection just selects, in practice killing off the mutants unless they're viable.It's not a strawman.

EXACTLY! So, in the long run, the fact that harmful mutants arrive doesn't matter. They get deleted by . . . selection. In practice, this means there is a kind of steady state, new harmful mutations arriving, harmful mutations being taken out, and the species carries on.

Beneficial mutations, however, wind up acting differently. They accumulate, more and more with time. This causes over geological era times a species to completely change from one species to another. Or, if populations are separated somehow, into more than one species.

So simple!

 

[Reasoning]

EXACTLY! So, in the long run, the fact that harmful mutants arrive doesn't matter. They get deleted by . . . selection. In practice, this means there is a kind of steady state, new harmful mutations arriving, harmful mutations being taken out, and the species carries on.
Beneficial mutations, however, wind up acting differently. They accumulate, more and more with time. This causes over geological era times a species to completely change from one species to another. Or, if populations are separated somehow, into more than one species.
So simple!

Nice summary, I like it

 

[pat34lee]

Why do you think there is always a new flu vaccine? Good thing we have great men and women in medical research who understand the theory of evolution to benefit your health huh?

They are the ones I blame for the current explosion of asthma, autism,
cancer and various diseases caused by the drugs they force on us.

 

[pat34lee]

EXACTLY! So, in the long run, the fact that harmful mutants arrive doesn't matter. They get deleted by . . . selection. In practice, this means there is a kind of steady state, new harmful mutations arriving, harmful mutations being taken out, and the species carries on.

Beneficial mutations, however, wind up acting differently. They accumulate, more and more with time. This causes over geological era times a species to completely change from one species to another. Or, if populations are separated somehow, into more than one species.

So simple!

So simple and so WRONG. You think that DNA can tell the difference between
good or bad mutations? It can't. It can tell original from changed. You are just
as likely to remove the few to none beneficial mutations as the 99.99% of bad
mutations.

 

[pat34lee]

No, it couldn't. If it was an inherited DNA sequence then it would be found in the parents. They weren't.

That's what I said. Not all genes are expressed every generation.
Recessive traits could crop up every second or third generation.

 

[pat34lee]

Evolution and the Bible do not contradict each other. The only Christians that will argue with that statement are fundamentalist types who interpret the Bible in a literal fashion. No big surprise here.

You mean believers, as opposed to those who don't believe.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So simple and so WRONG. You think that DNA can tell the difference between
good or bad mutations? It can't. It can tell original from changed. You are just
as likely to remove the few to none beneficial mutations as the 99.99% of bad
mutations.

The environment weeds out the bad ones.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's what I said. Not all genes are expressed every generation.

That isn't what you said. You said:

"It could also be natural variation."

If it was a natural variation of that genotype, then it would be found in the parents. It isn't. The genotype is brand spanking new because it was created by a mutation.

Genotypes don't hide or skip generations. You are thinking of phenotypes, which are not genotypes.

Recessive traits could crop up every second or third generation.

We aren't talking about phenotypes. We are talking about genotypes.

 

[Reasoning]

They are the ones I blame for the current explosion of asthma, autism, cancer and various diseases caused by the drugs they force on us.

Well you can put the blame on all you want, but that's just complete nonsense.

So simple and so WRONG. You think that DNA can tell the difference between good or bad mutations? It can't. It can tell original from changed. You are just
as likely to remove the few to none beneficial mutations as the 99.99% of bad
mutations.

This shows that you completely did not understand the topic. I advice to read the some of my and other posts where evolution is well explained.

 

[Anthony1970]

You mean believers, as opposed to those who don't believe.

explain what you mean.

 

[pat34lee]

Also, junk DNA is still very much alive. For example, this 2014 paper demonstrates that only 8.2% of the human genome is under constraint:
The other 93.7% of the human genome shows no evidence of selectable function (i.e. junk DNA).

Nope, junk DNA is going down faster than a popped balloon.

How do you think DNA knows what to do during differentiation, gestation,
birth, childhood, puberty, adulthood and our senile years? Just think of the
loops you would have to code for a program that performed so many totally
different functions at different times of life and under different circumstances?

ENCODE estimated at least 20% of DNA is functional, but junk DNA will all
go the way of vestigial organs and for the same reason. They were never there.
Only junk science based on evolution.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/

 

[pat34lee]

explain what you mean.

If God is a liar and you can't trust everything he had written about himself,
why would you accept him as God? He would be an imposter of the true God.

This is why I don't believe in the god of the Mormons, the Muslims or other
religions. I do believe in the God of the bible, and everything he inspired the
authors to write in it.

 

[Hieronymus]

I don't believe data corruption creates purposeful additions and/or improvement, either.

Good thing that isn't what evolution claims, or we'd be up a creek...

But it IS what evolutionists claim.
They call it random mutation, which means the DNA (the data) is changed without a purpose, like randomly changing some characters in a description or a flawed copy of some software.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope, junk DNA is going down faster than a popped balloon.

I just showed you a 1.5 year old study that shows just the opposite.

ENCODE estimated at least 20% of DNA is functional,

Meaning at least 80% is not functional.

but junk DNA will all
go the way of vestigial organs and for the same reason. They were never there.
Only junk science based on evolution.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/

Vestigial organs are still vestigial.

As one scientific paper put it, it is absurd to think that a large portion of the human genome is functional because this would mean that "biological function can be maintained indefinitely without selection, which implies that [large portions] of the genome is perfectly invulnerable to deleterious mutations, either because no mutation can ever occur in these “functional” regions, or because no mutation in these regions can ever be deleterious."
http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/20/gbe.evt028.short

So which is it? Is it impossible to remove the function of DNA through mutations or is there some magical force field that prevents deleterious mutations from happening in these regions?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

They are the ones I blame for the current explosion of asthma, autism,
cancer and various diseases caused by the drugs they force on us.

There is a conspiracy theory forum on this site. It's quite amazing what nonsense people will believe.

This is why I don't believe in the god of the Mormons, the Muslims or other
religions.

You would if you were born to Mormon, Muslim, etc parents.
Mormons believe in Jesus. They just believe Joseph Smith received a revelation much like the characters in the bible claim to have received. What makes your claims of revelation any more valid than others?

They call it random mutation, which means the DNA (the data) is changed without a purpose, like randomly changing some characters in a description or a flawed copy of some software.

That's exactly what it is. When you receive DNA from your parents, it copies itself over and over and over and over and over trillions and trillions of times. Sometimes there are mutations or 'copying errors' these are mostly neutral but can be positive or negative. We have directly observed this phenomenon. Do you reject observable facts?

 

[Reasoning]

But it IS what evolutionists claim.
They call it random mutation, which means the DNA (the data) is changed without a purpose, like randomly changing some characters in a description or a flawed copy of some software.

We're not talking about corruptions, we're talking about mutations. That can either be beneficial, neutral or non-beneficial for the species eventually.

 

[Loudmouth]

But it IS what evolutionists claim.
They call it random mutation, which means the DNA (the data) is changed without a purpose, like randomly changing some characters in a description or a flawed copy of some software.

They call it random with respect to fitness because the mechanisms that change DNA can not determine ahead of time whether the change in DNA will be beneficial, harmful, or neutral. As it turns out, the ability to change DNA sequence in this manner is built into genetic systems.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution and the Bible do not contradict each other.

So evolution says we came from the dust of the earth? and mankind started out as a single pair, consisting of one man and one woman?