Incorrect Assumptions of Past Similarities

[Justatruthseeker]

Due to a conversation with one of the evolutionary public relations bots here on CE earlier, who instead of being able to assert any science to defend his beliefs could do nothing but resort to ad-hominem attacks, I have decided to post this thread to show the false assumptions of past similarities.

As evolutionists fully admit and understand, the vast majority of mutations are neutral, leading to no net change in the organism.

Now this is where the illogical comes into play. You should pay close attention here. They want you to believe that creature B and creature C split from creature A at t amount of years into the past. This is because they find x amount of mutations in B and y amount of mutations in C. But because of their flawed assumption that the creatures were similar to begin with, they assume all the mutations have accumulated over time leading to divergence.

Yet we all understand the vast majority of mutations have no effect whatsoever. In reality almost all of the x and y mutations are neutral, and have led to no change over time. Mutations do not prove past similarity, they instead prove past dissimilarity. Since the vast amount of mutations lead to no change over time, they instead show that creature B and C were dissimilar from the beginning, not similar. But evolutionists ignore what they know to be true, and instead calculate all mutations as having an effect and leading to change over time. Contrary to the fact that we understand almost all mutations are neutral, then deleterious and only then beneficial. The mutations that do have an effect almost invariably lead to loss of fitness in creatures, with only the rare mutation leading to a beneficial change.

Their calculations of past similarity are based upon false assumptions of accumulation of mutation going backwards, even if their own science tells them that almost all mutations are neutral.

In reality they can not account for change without incorrectly assuming that the vast majority of mutations were all beneficial and induced change, ignoring the reality that they were instead neutral and effected no change, showing the creatures were never similar to begin with.

It is all smoke and mirrors and false assumptions. Misdirection and double-talk to divert you from the truth. They want you to believe they can calculate the past rate of change from mutations, but as we all know, the vast majority of mutations led to no change at all....... In reality the only thing they are calculating is the wishful thinking in their own minds......

 

[Brightmoon]

Now this is where the illogical comes into play. You should pay close attention here. They want you to believe that creature B and creature C split from creature A at t amount of years into the past.

(Snip) ..

before you get any further, that describes both bread wheat (C)and macaroni wheat (B) evolving from a different ancestor ( A) almost perfectly.
They all have different chromosome numbers

Bread wheat T aestivum has 42 chromosomes. Einkorn has 14, and Emmer ( macaroni wheat) has 28. This is called allopolyploidy speciation and it’s rather common in plants and occasionally happens in animals . Even in bread wheat it had happened twice

As usual it’s a screenshot and you’ll have to google

 

[Justatruthseeker]

View attachment 239831 before you get any further, that describes both bread wheat (C)and macaroni wheat (B) evolving from a different ancestor ( A) almost perfectly.
They all have different chromosome numbers View attachment 239831
Bread wheat T aestivum has 42 chromosomes. Einkorn has 14, and Emmer ( macaroni wheat) has 28. This is called allopolyploidy speciation and it’s rather common in plants and occasionally happens in animals . Even in bread wheat it had happened twice

And lets understand wheat is a product of cultivation by man, domestication..... So if you are trying to prove the need for an intelligent designer to create new species, you are doing an excellent job...... The same way man created all the different breeds of dogs from breeding.....

The same thing being done to foxes.....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763232/

Now you can call them separate species all you like, but then we already understand with 14 definitions of species, one can call anything a separate species..... Yet we can cross-breed them all, so you can make all the claims of separate species you like, just don't expect everyone to accept your claims.....

And notice the intentional misdirection from creature A splitting to creature B and C to wheat remaining wheat. As if wheat remaining wheat solved the problem?????

 

[Brightmoon]

The word we use to describe wheat is actually several different species . So saying it’s still wheat is meaningless . Wheat evolved to be different over human timescales . Over several millennia it might become a different genus . Over millions of years, you have one branch of the Poaceae ( grasses) becoming the wheats .

You still haven’t demonstrated a mechanism for separate creation . Nor have you demonstrated that barrier which would prevent continual evolution and the Ball is still in your court !

 

[Bungle_Bear]

In reality they can not account for change without incorrectly assuming that the vast majority of mutations were all beneficial and induced change, ignoring the reality that they were instead neutral and effected no change, showing the creatures were never similar to begin with.

Please explain why the assumption is that the "vast majority of mutations" must be beneficial.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As evolutionists fully admit and understand, the vast majority of mutations are neutral, leading to no net change in the organism.

That's not actually correct...
When it is said that a mutation is neutral, it means neutral with respect to fitness. A neutral mutation might still bring about physical changes. It's just that those changes don't alter the creature's fitness.

Now this is where the illogical comes into play. You should pay close attention here. They want you to believe that creature B and creature C split from creature A at t amount of years into the past. This is because they find x amount of mutations in B and y amount of mutations in C.

Incorrect. The amount of mutations doesn't matter. It's the pattern of specific mutations that does.

But because of their flawed assumption that the creatures were similar to begin with, they assume all the mutations have accumulated over time leading to divergence.

That's what DNA does.... children inherit the (potentially mutated) genes of the parents.
Over generations, mutations accumulate. Again, that's just how DNA works. By observation.

Yet we all understand the vast majority of mutations have no effect whatsoever.

But they still accumulate.

In reality almost all of the x and y mutations are neutral, and have led to no change over time.

As above: neutral with respect to fitness. Which isn't about physical change. It's about change, be it just genotype or also phenotype, that has no effect (pro or con) on survivability and ability to reproduce.

Mutations do not prove past similarity, they instead prove past dissimilarity.

That makes no sense.
Again, are you not aware that the (mutated) DNA of parents is inherited by off spring?

Since the vast amount of mutations lead to no change over time, they instead show that creature B and C were dissimilar from the beginning, not similar

It seems that your entire argument is based on this false premise.

But evolutionists ignore what they know to be true, and instead calculate all mutations as having an effect and leading to change over time.

Not true at all, as explained already.

Neutral mutations accumulate too.

Contrary to the fact that we understand almost all mutations are neutral, then deleterious and only then beneficial.

Evolution doesn't require more.

The mutations that do have an effect almost invariably lead to loss of fitness in creatures, with only the rare mutation leading to a beneficial change.

Which is enough for evolution to take place. Evolution doesn't require an "abundance" of beneficial mutations, at all.

Their calculations of past similarity are based upon false assumptions of accumulation of mutation going backwards, even if their own science tells them that almost all mutations are neutral.

You keep repeating this, but you seem completely oblivious to the fact that neutral mutations are also inherited by off spring - and thus also accumulate in the genome.

In reality they can not account for change without incorrectly assuming that the vast majority of mutations were all beneficial and induced change

Not correct at all.

, ignoring the reality that they were instead neutral and effected no change, showing the creatures were never similar to begin with.

You make no sense at all. It's like you have no idea of the role of DNA in reproduction.

It is all smoke and mirrors and false assumptions. Misdirection and double-talk to divert you from the truth. They want you to believe they can calculate the past rate of change from mutations, but as we all know, the vast majority of mutations led to no change at all....... In reality the only thing they are calculating is the wishful thinking in their own minds......

All in all, you once again exposed just how ignorant you are on evolutionary biology.
That's not an "ad hominim". That's an observation from the things you write down.

You literally got nothing correct here. It's a complete misrepresentation of the mechanism of evolution AND of the evidence in support on it. Wheter that misrepresentation is deliberate or simply the result of honest ignorance... I don't know.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The word we use to describe wheat is actually several different species . So saying it’s still wheat is meaningless . Wheat evolved to be different over human timescales . Over several millennia it might become a different genus . Over millions of years, you have one branch of the Poaceae ( grasses) becoming the wheats .

You still haven’t demonstrated a mechanism for separate creation . Nor have you demonstrated that barrier which would prevent continual evolution and the Ball is still in your court !

Nore did the OP manage to get the very basics of the basics correct in the OP rant. "Rant", because that's what it is - nothing more, nothing less.

Accusations and misrepresentations, without ANY supporting evidence.
All bark and no bite.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Nore did the OP manage to get the very basics of the basics correct in the OP rant. "Rant", because that's what it is - nothing more, nothing less.

Accusations and misrepresentations, without ANY supporting evidence.
All bark and no bite.

And he'll mostly ignore your rebuttal, just as he'll ignore my question. Then he'll repeat these claims in a day or two pretending (and even claiming) he's never been corrected.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And he'll mostly ignore your rebuttal, just as he'll ignore my question. Then he'll repeat these claims in a day or two pretending (and even claiming) he's never been corrected.

Really? You think it will take a day or two?
Optimist!

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

And lets understand wheat is a product of cultivation by man, domestication..... So if you are trying to prove the need for an intelligent designer to create new species, you are doing an excellent job...... The same way man created all the different breeds of dogs from breeding.....

The same thing being done to foxes.....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763232/

Now you can call them separate species all you like, but then we already understand with 14 definitions of species, one can call anything a separate species..... Yet we can cross-breed them all, so you can make all the claims of separate species you like, just don't expect everyone to accept your claims.....

And notice the intentional misdirection from creature A splitting to creature B and C to wheat remaining wheat. As if wheat remaining wheat solved the problem?????

Dude. We didn't go in and change the number of chromosomes to get different kinds of wheat. All we did was cross breed them. All of the mechanisms that came into play during that cross breeding were all naturally occurring. Same with corn. and dogs. and foxes... Just because we put the things together does not make them "intelligently designed" in the context you need it to mean. We just became the most overwhelmingly influential selective force in determining fitness for these organisms in the environment they were in which we were also selecting to a great degree.

It's still mutation and selection.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The word we use to describe wheat is actually several different species . So saying it’s still wheat is meaningless . Wheat evolved to be different over human timescales . Over several millennia it might become a different genus . Over millions of years, you have one branch of the Poaceae ( grasses) becoming the wheats .

You still haven’t demonstrated a mechanism for separate creation . Nor have you demonstrated that barrier which would prevent continual evolution and the Ball is still in your court !

Ahhh, so now you are admitting that it must occur over millions of years which can not be observed, can not be tested, nor can it be repeated. Anything but the definition of a scientific theory....

Hasn't something been evolving over millions of years as we speak, or did evolution stop millions of years ago and so we never actually observe anything evolving into something new in our lifetimes? Seems to me if your theory was even halfway correct, we should see evidence of partially formed body parts, organs or even the "missing" links to the next round of creatures. But we never do. All we see is wheat becoming wheat, dogs becoming dogs, foxes becoming foxes, bacteria becoming bacteria, and on and on and on and on.......

You have no specific definition of species, so talk of one thing becoming a separate species or undergoing speciation is pointless..... So saying it is all wheat is the only meaningful definition, since no one can tell me what the scientific definition of species is that does not allow self-contradictory classifications.

Is it the ability to interbreed or cross-pollinate (wheat - check) able to live in the same ecosystem (wheat - check)... I take issue with their classifications. Exceptional issues....

https://mcdowell.ces.ncsu.edu/Cross+Pollinating+Crops/

"If you plant a cucumber beside a squash will you end up with a cuash or a squcumber? This is not a problem with vegetables that are different species even if the vegetables are similar. Cucumbers and squash are both in the cucurbit family but cucumber (Cucumis sativus) cannot cross pollinate squash (Cucurbita pepo) because they are two different species."

Now pay close attention:

"However, varieties of the same species can cross pollinate."

https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/files/publications/slide-sets-example.pdf

https://insteading.com/blog/genetic-contamination-may-not-mean-what-you-think-it-means/

So I seriously object to your incorrect classifications of wheat as separate species when they are merely varieties of the same species........ otherwise they would not be able to cross-pollinate. I am not interested in evolutionary Press releases that ignore the scientific facts.

If you want to discuss a mechanism for separate creation start your own thread and stop trying to double-talk your way out of and divert from your problem.

So we have wheat that remains wheat, bears that remain bears, bacteria that remain bacteria, humans that remain human, dogs that remain dogs, and yet has not evolution been going on behind the scenes for millions of years already> Why must we always wait a million years to see any evidences of such, has it not been occurring for the last several million years??????

And yet your scan of the pollen of wheat is disingenuous in the extreme, since it does not prevent the wheat from cross-pollinating. Now I agree cucumbers and squash are separate species, they can not cross-pollinate. Also some crops we specifically breed for sterility, so can only be re-introduced by replanting from new seed stock, so that is an artificial and not natural result.....

So no, the ball is not in my court, it is still in yours awaiting some kind of actual evidence one thing can become something new.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Dude. We didn't go in and change the number of chromosomes to get different kinds of wheat. All we did was cross breed them. All of the mechanisms that came into play during that cross breeding were all naturally occurring. Same with corn. and dogs. and foxes... Just because we put the things together does not make them "intelligently designed" in the context you need it to mean. We just became the most overwhelmingly influential selective force in determining fitness for these organisms in the environment they were in which we were also selecting to a great degree.

It's still mutation and selection.

And also clearly the same species since they can all cross-pollinate.

Now if you want you may correctly call them sub-species, varieties, or whatever suits your fancy. Just don’t expect all of us to share your fantasies of speciation.....

See above post. The scientists seem to agree with me on species.... granted a few evolutionist fanatics have invaded the taxonomic system to intentionally muddy the waters, but that’s what they want, muddy waters, not clarity....

Clarity would show their sham for what it is....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yah I’d avoid your inconsistencies of calling squash and cucumbers separate species because they can’t cross-pollinate while admitting varieties of a species can too. Then calling wheat separate species despite the fact they can cross-pollinate.

As I have always said: error after uncorrected error, incorrect classification after incorrect classification is the ToE.......

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yah I’d avoid your inconsistencies of calling squash and cucumbers separate species because they can’t cross-pollinate while admitting varieties of a species can too. Then calling wheat separate species despite the fact they can cross-pollinate.

As I have always said: error after uncorrected error, incorrect classification after incorrect classification is the ToE.......

I'm still waiting for you to explain why evolution must assume all mutations are beneficial. Please allow me to request that to be the topic of your next pontification.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm still waiting for you to explain why evolution must assume all mutations are beneficial. Please allow me to request that to be the topic of your next pontification.

They don’t need to assume that, they just incorrectly do....

 

[Jimmy D]

They don’t need to assume that, they just incorrectly do....

Who does?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Who does?

Evolutionists.

You don’t get from simple to complex with neutral or deleterious mutations.

It’s ok. I understand your need to not answer anything by replying with a question. Standard avoidance tactic 101.

You should know who, it’s What you believe in isn’t it? Simple to complex????

It’s how you get from apelike to human remember, beneficial mutations, not neutral....

Sad you all have to avoid your own beliefs....

 

[tas8831]

Due to a conversation with one of the evolutionary public relations bots here on CE earlier, who instead of being able to assert any science to defend his beliefs could do nothing but resort to ad-hominem attacks, I have decided to post this thread to show the false assumptions of past similarities.

As evolutionists fully admit and understand, the vast majority of mutations are neutral, leading to no net change in the organism.

Now this is where the illogical comes into play. You should pay close attention here. They want you to believe that creature B and creature C split from creature A at t amount of years into the past. This is because they find x amount of mutations in B and y amount of mutations in C. But because of their flawed assumption that the creatures were similar to begin with, they assume all the mutations have accumulated over time leading to divergence.

Yet we all understand the vast majority of mutations have no effect whatsoever. In reality almost all of the x and y mutations are neutral, and have led to no change over time. Mutations do not prove past similarity, they instead prove past dissimilarity. Since the vast amount of mutations lead to no change over time, they instead show that creature B and C were dissimilar from the beginning, not similar. But evolutionists ignore what they know to be true, and instead calculate all mutations as having an effect and leading to change over time. Contrary to the fact that we understand almost all mutations are neutral, then deleterious and only then beneficial. The mutations that do have an effect almost invariably lead to loss of fitness in creatures, with only the rare mutation leading to a beneficial change.

Their calculations of past similarity are based upon false assumptions of accumulation of mutation going backwards, even if their own science tells them that almost all mutations are neutral.

In reality they can not account for change without incorrectly assuming that the vast majority of mutations were all beneficial and induced change, ignoring the reality that they were instead neutral and effected no change, showing the creatures were never similar to begin with.

It is all smoke and mirrors and false assumptions. Misdirection and double-talk to divert you from the truth. They want you to believe they can calculate the past rate of change from mutations, but as we all know, the vast majority of mutations led to no change at all....... In reality the only thing they are calculating is the wishful thinking in their own minds......

It is so cute that the creationist thinks that phylogenetics is premised on beneficial mutations...

Pity that so many creationists do not understand a very basic genetics fact - that there is no 1-to-1 relationship between mutations (good, bad or indifferent) and morphology.

Poor things... They try so hard.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

They don’t need to assume that, they just incorrectly do....

OK. Now please support that assertion. I'd like a reference to evolutionists making the assumption that all mutations are beneficial. To make it really easy for you, a single reference will suffice.

Since it will take a lot less effort to post a single reference than to perform your famous avoidance dance, you really have 3 options:

1. Say that your claim is erroneous, which at least gives you the opportunity to limit damage by saying you were misinformed but have now learnt the truth and will no longer make that claim.
2. Perform your avoidance dance. This is, of course, a tacit admission that you have no support for the claim and have knowingly been dishonest but will not admit it.
3. Actually admit your dishonesty.

 

[HitchSlap]

Please explain why the assumption is that the "vast majority of mutations" must be beneficial.

My guess, he thought it made sense when he thought of it. Humans have incredible imaginations.