How many mutations to get Y from X?

[tas8831]

Perhaps you just don't understand what I said?

I understand it perfectly well. That it took you this long to even TRY to address my request says much.

Let us keep in mind what you wrote - so we can see if you actually address it:

For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...​

Let's see if you can actually address your assertions and support them with evidence - I'm guessing..... NOPE.

About 90 percent of DNA is thought to be non-functional, so those mutations have no effect. So, we have 10% functional DNA.

OK...

Mutations in this 10 percent can be neutral, beneficial, or harmful.

OK...

Probably less than half of the mutations to this 10 percent of DNA are neutral.

Citation?

Of the remainder, 999/1000 are harmful or fatal and the remainder may be beneficial. Source:" Remine, The Biotic Message"

Page number? i have that comic book, so I'd like to check. But then, there is your problem - ReMine is an electrical engineer creationist. He also stupidly wrote the dopey prose about 'is 500,000 mutations enough to get a sapien from a simian?'.

This is actually an oversimplification but a widely used one.

Widely used by creationists that don't know any better, sure.

Let's see:

DID NOT ADDRESS:
For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.

DID NOT ADDRESS:
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...


No wonder you kept running away - you were just making crap up based on your misunderstanding of the dopey rants of a non-scientist YEC kook.

 

[renniks]

I understand it perfectly well. That it took you this long to even TRY to address my request says much.

Let us keep in mind what you wrote - so we can see if you actually address it:

For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...​

Let's see if you can actually address your assertions and support them with evidence - I'm guessing..... NOPE.

OK...

OK...

Citation?
Page number? i have that comic book, so Id like to check. Bu then, there is your problem - ReMine is an electrical engineer creationist. He also stupidly wrote the dopey prose about 'is 500,000 mutations enough to get a sapien from a simian?'.

Widely used by creationists that don't know any better, sure.

Let's see:

DID NOT ADDRESS:
For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.

DID NOT ADDRESS:
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...


You suck at this. No wonder you kept running away - you were just making crap up based on your misunderstanding of the dopey rants of a non-scientist YEC kook.

I'm pretty sure that's called flaming. Obviously you can not discuss without it... Which isn't the sign of a mature individual. Maybe once you graduate high school you will grow up a little.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm pretty sure that's called flaming. Obviously you can not discuss without it... Which isn't the sign of a mature individual. Maybe once you graduate high school you will grow up a little.

You ideas do not work when applied to evidence.

Creationists often use phrases along the lines of "That's adaption not evolution" or "that's just changes within kinds", because they have to contend with the evidence that wqe can clearly see species adapting to their environment even on our time scale.

Your idea about how genetics work would make that impossible because all species would be degenerating all the time faster than any new trait could develop.

The diversity of humankind alone shows your idea to simply be false.

 

[tas8831]

I'm pretty sure that's called flaming.

It is actually called "pointing out that you did not address what I asked you to address."

Obviously you can not discuss without it..

Of course I can discuss it - YOU can't - that is why you ran off in the first place. That is why you pulled the YEC shuffle..

Which isn't the sign of a mature individual. Maybe once you graduate high school you will grow up a little.

Says the fella that thinks this:

"Of the remainder, 999/1000 are harmful or fatal and the remainder may be beneficial. Source:" Remine, The Biotic Message""


supports this:

"For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene...
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another..."


Hilarious.

ReMine is not someone to use as a reliable source, he is a zealot with a ego problem who cannot accept that his beliefs are not scientifically tenable.

As I re-read your unsupported assertions, I see another problem - you seem to be among the group of under-educated YEC types that wants to believe that in order for evolution to proceed, that there must be no deleterious mutations at all.

Silly.

Almost as silly as thinking a high schooler beat you because you cannot understand your own assertions.

 

[renniks]

Almost as silly as thinking a high schooler beat you because you cannot understand your own assertions.

Beat me? Is this a wrestling match?
Lol, I see my assumption was correct.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm pretty sure that's called flaming. Obviously you can not discuss without it... Which isn't the sign of a mature individual. Maybe once you graduate high school you will grow up a little.

I understand that you disapprove of tas8831's tone and delivery.

I feel that you should still be able to support your assertions about genetics and mutation with some evidence of a reliable source.

 

[renniks]

I understand that you disapprove of tas8831's tone and delivery.

I feel that you should still be able to support your assertions about genetics and mutation with some evidence of a reliable source.

And what would you consider a reliable source? There's the rub.

 

[Shemjaza]

And what would you consider a reliable source? There's the rub.

Something drawing on definable scientific evidence.

 

[tas8831]

Beat me? Is this a wrestling match?
Lol, I see my assumption was correct.

DID NOT ADDRESS:
For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.

DID NOT ADDRESS:
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...

Concession accepted.

 

[tas8831]

And what would you consider a reliable source? There's the rub.

Not a YEC whiner with no relevant background like ReMine.

 

[tas8831]

And what would you consider a reliable source? There's the rub.

This:
"Of the remainder, 999/1000 are harmful or fatal and the remainder may be beneficial."



DID NOT ADDRESS:
For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.

DID NOT ADDRESS:
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...

 

[Subduction Zone]

And what would you consider a reliable source? There's the rub.

An article from a well respected professional journal would be a good start. One frequent creationist lie is that there is a prejudice against them in well respected professional journals. That is not true. There is "prejudice" against articles that have gross errors in them. Articles that do not properly describe how they did their scientific work. And articles that make unjustified assumptions. Lastly they have a prejudice against articles that do not follow the scientific method and use proper evidence.

Do you know who has an improper bias? Creationist "journals". Almost al creationist sites have a Statement of Faith where they essentially have to swear that no matter what creationism is right. That means that what they publish there is not science singe such an assumption is simply not allowed in the sciences.

 

[tas8831]

Humble too, I see.

Can't hang? Shouldn't have tried.

 

[tas8831]

This:
"Of the remainder, 999/1000 are harmful or fatal and the remainder may be beneficial."



DID NOT ADDRESS:
For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.

DID NOT ADDRESS:
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...

One for the archives.

 

[tas8831]

@renniks - still waiting for your evidence for these claims, any emphases mine:

For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.


So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...
It's a recipe for degradation...not creation of new species.

Looking forward to it!

 

[renniks]

Looks like a certain someone is selecting what to ignore to avoid crashing and burning...

Still waiting for your evidence/support for these assertions:

@renniks : For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...​

Two improper uses of the smiley faces...equals someone who can't argue fairly.

 

[Shemjaza]

Two improper uses of the smiley faces...equals someone who can't argue fairly.

That is not a reasonable argument.

 

[Gottservant]

Maiotunst nodt gchnae het aneming

 

[tas8831]

Two improper uses of the smiley faces...equals someone who can't argue fairly.

Feelings hurt, I see....

DID NOT ADDRESS:
For each favorable mutation, a species must go through about one thousand harmful mutations of that particular gene.

DID NOT ADDRESS:
So if you have a favorable mutation in one gene you're obviously going to have harmful ones in another...

Concession accepted.

 

[tas8831]

That is not a reasonable argument.

All they have most of the time - whining about this or that. Imagine reporting THAT... amazing.