Key arguments for creation biologist?

[juvenissun]

The daughter cells (B1 + B2) are not 'new' - would have less telemeres than their parents cell (A). So eventually each new generation of cells would be able to divide less. Just like the mouse experiment.

You did not answer my another question:

I started with a single cell. It divided and divided. And I heard that these replicated cells can only keep dividing for less than 10 years (stop dividing and die). So I heard that for a 30-year old person, he is no longer made of his original cells (except those cells do not replicate, such as the neuron cells. True?).

If so, why can I survive beyond 10 years old?

 

[juvenissun]

you could just accept the truth that, despite what your all important bible says...

Evolution is truth. It's real, and very much in progress. Sorry it doesn't fit into your faith.

Buddha said: YOU are not real !
And I agree.

 

[juvenissun]

Not quite, as it does not prove Creationist claims (that the world ws created in six days). However how different species are created is still a puzzle for evolutionists. Seeing one species become two in nature would be very difficult because there are too many uncontrolled variables.

As I always think, since nothing about creation can be proven (this is the nature of it), then if there is a question that evolution can not answer (not supposed to), then creation remains a viable choice. Most arguments given by creationists are of this type.

This is a negative attitude (but it works in many situations). To be positive, creationist should ask questions inspired by the Scripture. I just gave one example: the genetics of Adam is "perfect". What does it mean by "perfect" in genetics? This type of question is what I am after in this thread.

By the way, it may have answered your question: Mutations are all bad, so what?

So, it supports what's said in Genesis: Life and earth are "cursed"! For a creation scientist, the job is to demonstrate what does this "curse" mean.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Even Talk Origins says that most mutations are harmful, that is of course, the ones that are not neutral.

As I mentioned earlier that same link you provided also said beneficial mutations were common and effective.

Genetics does not depend on evolution as natural history to be accurate simply because it deals with living systems, not dead ancestors.

For once I agree with you. However this disproves the idea (which Biblewriter and other creationists have mentioned) that this 'genetic evidence is only proof of evolution if we already assume evolution is true'.

The fact that most mutations with an effect on fitness are deleterious in no way indicates mass extinction. The statement is absurd, confused and just plain wrong.

I didn't claim that such mutations could cause mass extinctions - this would require an entire species (or several species) to inherit the same devestating mutation, which obvious is incredibly unlikely.

What I mean is the assumption that most mutations are harmful (which you mention at the begining of your post) is wrong simply because the effect would be so damaging it would not survive a few generations - such as the telomerase-defective mice I mentioned earlier.

Proving the existence of beneficial effects from mutations, even if they outnumber deleterious effects (and they do under special circumstances), does not disprove creationism.

It would if the Creationism hypothesis is that life is atrophying at such a rate that it would be impossible for organisms to develop into different and more complex lifeforms.

 

[mark kennedy]

But there is very likely an isolated environment, which provide a chance of avoiding the re-mix.

From this example, I can see another common type of argument here:

Human can control a small environment, in which some mutations can be preserved and populated (don't know if this is true or not). But that does not mean the experimental result can be applied to the natural environment.

Bacteria don't really speciate, they divide in order to reproduce. They do simulate 'rough' conditions that emulate what is expected in nature in controlled experiments but there are real problems with this. Yes, they do adapt due to a larger number of beneficial mutations but there is a cost/benefit balance that must be reached. You also have to take into consideration that the adaptive effects are long term and that the deleterious effects are a constant.

There could be (in fact, I think there ARE) serious and fatal differences between lab environment and natural environment. So, to stretch it a little bit, even speciation is possible in the lab, it may still not be possible in the nature. To see speciation under controlled environment is hard enough with today's technology. We will never be able to actually observe any single example of speciation in the nature.

How good is this argument for creationist?

If you want to argue that new species are not being created by scientists I guess it will work. The fact is that speciation is a fact of life that is actually very important to creationists.

Consider this, how many animals were on the Ark? How long ago was that? Now how many species do we know exist today?

If speciation did not exist then creation would have an impossible dilemma. How did the creatures that emerge from the Ark manage to fill the world in all it's vast array of diversity?

There is a good argument here though. Humans have filled every ecological niche on the planet and yet have never speciated. Chimpanzees have, Gorillas have and they are isolated in equatorial Africa. Why not us?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Bacteria don't really speciate, they divide in order to reproduce. They do simulate 'rough' conditions that emulate what is expected in nature in controlled experiments but there are real problems with this. Yes, they do adapt due to a larger number of beneficial mutations but there is a cost/benefit balance that must be reached. You also have to take into consideration that the adaptive effects are long term and that the deleterious effects are a constant.



If you want to argue that new species are not being created by scientists I guess it will work. The fact is that speciation is a fact of life that is actually very important to creationists.

Consider this, how many animals were on the Ark? How long ago was that? Now how many species do we know exist today?

If speciation did not exist then creation would have an impossible dilemma. How did the creatures that emerge from the Ark manage to fill the world in all it's vast array of diversity?

There is a good argument here though. Humans have filled every ecological niche on the planet and yet have never speciated. Chimpanzees have, Gorillas have and they are isolated in equatorial Africa. Why not us?

Grace and peace,
Mark

But ... If you accepted that the implied process of speciation were true, then how do you argue with the idea of evolution? Speciation is the foundation of evolution, isn't it?

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

I never said that beneficial mutations don't accumulate. What I have always said is that the vast majority of mutations with an effect are deleterious. As usual you have twisted what I said:

Mark, the point here was that you have been shown time and again that the math of selection makes the smaller number of beneficial mutations be greatly amplified, while the harmful mutations are removed and thus irrelevant.

You denied that basic fact by posting this:

Sure there is an occasional beneficial affect but they are vastly out numbered by neutral, deleterious and lethal mutations.

That's a falsehood, plain and simple. It's in post #38, here:http://www.christianforums.com/t7458722-4/

Do you agree that selection makes beneficial mutations eventually more numerous in the genome than harmful mutations? Q1

You have not proved a falsehood, what you have done is provide quotes out of context with a flaming ad hominem attack.

One can't prove a falsehood - falsehoods are false, after all. What I've done is provide links showing where you posted falsehoods, such as the deletrious mutations "drowning out" the beneficial ones, changing the text of luke, saying that NSP's correct statement was "rubbish", and the other falsehoods detailed in this post.
​

Papias wrote:

Some examples include:
Mark denying that 1 Cr and Mt contradict each other:

. http://www.christianforums.com/t7458722-6/ See posts #55 and 56, and on

Your posts look like tennis shoes in a tumble dryer. You cut and paste the names from the geneologies but never made an informed statement about them. Want to call me a liar!

Matthew traces Jesus lineage through David's son Solomon while Luke traces his through David's son Nathan......

Mark, please look at what you wrote and realize that I asked about the book of 1st Chronicles. I didn't mention Luke at all there, yet you ignored what I wrote, and argued against a different question.

So, for Q2, do you agree that Matthew's geneology skips generations as compared to the geneology found in 1st Chronicles?


​

Mark wrote:

papias wrote:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7515625-5/ See post #42

​

From post #42:

Mark, do you agree that both Mt and Lk explicitly say that their respective geneologies are those of Joseph?
​

​

The two geneaogies are easily reconciled if Luke's is seen as Mary's genealogy, and Matthew's version represents Joseph's.

Mark, I didn't ask how you could reconcile them. I asked what the words of the Bible say. Please answer the question, or at least say you are afraid to answer it or something before you go on to answer some other question you made up. Thanks. Q3.

Luke, unlike Matthew includes no women in his genealogy,

Mark, do you agree that the geneology in Matthew is a pure male line, always going from father to son? Q4

Joseph was 'the son of Heli' by marriage

Which verse in the Bible says that Joseph was not the natural son of Heli? Q5

Heli having no sons of his own,

Luke 2:23 actually reads:

Jesus was the son (so it was though) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat....

So, which verse in the Bible says that Heli had no sons? V. 23 says, on the other hand, that Heli had at least 1 son, namely Joseph. Q6

The men listed from heli v. 23 to Rhesa v.27 are found nowhere else in Scripture. (John MacAurthur)

OK, then maybe Luke is trying to make a theological point with them then?

Any honset exposition of the text can reconcil this apparent contradiction.

Is it honest to change the words of the Bible? Or it is more honest to use what the Bible itself says in the discussion?

Mark wrote:
​

Papias wrote:

Mark denying that his own evidence shows that most supporters of evolution are Christian:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7458722-3/ around post 29 and on.

No I'm not, what I am arguing is that Creationists outnumber Theistic Evolutionists. I wasn't interested in your statement that most evolutionists are Christians because it's rhetorical jibberish.

Mark, you repeatedly denied my statement (that most supporters of evolution are Christian), substituting your own, different statement (Creationists outnumber Theistic Evolutionists), and then you accuse me of retorical jibberish? Wow.

Now it's true enough that mosst evolutionists are Christians (not that I ever denied it)

Mark, when NSP wrote:

The majority of evolutionists are theists.

you replied :

Rubbish,

and then added a different statement (about scientists).

Christians are theists, right?

I even pointed out your switcheroo in post #29, here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7458722-3/
(and, since you apparently don't like to follow links, I'll post the statement too:
Whoa, Mark! Mark changed the "evolutionists" to "scientists". That's a clear distortion, because nearly all of those who support evolution are not scientists. )


But now that you agree most supporters of evolution are Christian, I'm glad we've settled that.

but by far the largest demographic are Creationists.

Gallup shows that (in the US) there are 40% creationists to 38% theistic evolution supporters. I'm not sure I'd call 2% "by far", I think I'd call that closer to "roughly evenly divided", but nonetheless, I'll agree with your statement that Creationists outnumber Theistic Evolutionists.

You are calling me a liar by putting words in my mouth. So far you have failed to prove a single falsehood while misrepresenting what I actually said.

No, I extensively linked to what you said, and extensively quoted what you said, just so you can see what you actually said. As mentioned above, I've listed some of your falsehoods, such as the deletrious mutations "drowning out" the beneficial ones, changing the text of luke, saying that NSP's correct statement was "rubbish", and the other falsehoods detailed in this post.


​

http://www.christianforums.com/t7521063/ on post #7

​

The link had this message at the other end.

Invalid Thread specified. If you followed a valid link
​

​

ooops. Broken. Oh well.

Papias wrote:

Mark claiming that transcription errors are mutations, even when shown by an actual biologist that they aren’t.
http://www.christianforums.com/t5090795-9/#post34148323 see post #83 or so.

A mutation is a change in an organism's genome, regardless of cause, be it internal or external.

Right.

Transcription errors are valid mutations.

So then by putting in Mark's definition of mutation, which he just gave, into the sentence above where he says "mutation", we get:

Transcription errors are changes in an organism's genome.

Which is false. The genome is DNA, transcription errors only change the RNA. Thus, Transcription errors are not changes to an organism's genome, and thus not mutations by Mark's definition. Thanks Mark, for making that easy to explain.

DNA transcription errors can spontaneously occur during replication.

Another of Mark's falsehoods. Transcription errors result in changes to the RNA, not the DNA, and so errors that arise during replication will be, naturally, replication errors, not transcription errors.

Mark, transcription is not replication.

The stabilized TEM-1 variants also showed increased tolerance to genetic mutations. Thus, although phenotypic mutations are not individually subjected to inheritance and natural selection,

Mark, what is going on here, is that you have been taking quotes from places without understanding them, then arguing anyway. In this case, you have confused phenotypic mutations (which are referred to in the paper above), with genetic mutations (which are what you define yourself above). So by your own definition of a mutation, you are wrong that transcription errror are mutations. I'll give you a way out:

Simply admit that you made a mistake, and that you meant "phenotypic mutations", instead of your statement about DNA transcription errors and replication, and you'll be OK.

You have to understand, he is a staff scientist at MIT, he is pointing out a subtle but important distinction.

Again, maybe it's not a good idea to disagree with the expert when discussing topics in their field?

But seriously. To bring the discussion around - this is pretty good for bringing in biology topics for Juvi to learn, which is the purpose of this thread, right?

Papias
​

 

[shernren]

I claim no such thing, what I tell people is that natural selection is an effect not a cause. What eliminates mutations are either the force of the effects or a repair mechanism in the DNA.

• cells use the unmodified complementary strand of the DNA or the sister chromatid as a template to recover the original information

Uh-huh.

Okay mark, time for some biology 101. A diploid cell undergoes a genetic mutation on one strand of its DNA:

• At what point in its cell cycle can this damage be repaired? For bonus marks, what is the name of the process during which this can occur?

Assume that this damage is not repaired, and the diploid cell undergoes mitosis.

• Of its two daughter cells, how many will inherit the mutation?
• In the cell(s) which inherit the mutation, can DNA repair mechanisms restore the mutated section of the genome to its original sequence?

If you can answer these very, very simple questions correctly, you will see why DNA repair mechanisms cannot repair expressed mutations. If you can't ...

 

[Papias]

One of the unfortunate habits of evidence deniers is to make a statement, and then, after being corrected and shown evidence to the contrary, to abandon the argument at the time. Then, in another thread or venue, repeat the same original claim as if they hadn't been corrected before, and didn't learn the actual evidence.

Earlier on this thread, Biblewriter wrote:

In my university days I did a term paper on what fraction of all mutations are beneficial. The actual data collected in my study of five thousand mutations that had been cataloged in drosophila melanogaster were that 90% of all observed mutations were lethal, and 90% of all non-lethal mutations were crippling. But of the entire five thousand observed mutations, I found only one allegation that a single beneficial mutation had been observed once. But as this allegation was not accompanied by documentation of any kind, it was discarded as hearsay.

But Biblewriter, you and I discussed some of the hundreds of cases of beneficial mutations, just three weeks ago. If anyone on here knows that there are many, many documented cases of beneficial mutations, it should be you. And yet here you are, again suggesting that there is some lack of evidence for beneficial mutations!

Just to jog your memory, back on Dec. 1 you suggested there wasn't evidence for benefiical mutations on post #59 in the thread linked to below, then on post #60 on that thread I gave just a few of the hundreds of documented beneficial mutations:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7513938-6/#post56214057

I wrote in post #60:

Well, you are welcome to post the papers you used in your research. There is plenty of evidence for many observed beneficial mutations. For example, here is an observed beneficial mutation for better immune cells in humans: Enhanced fMLP-stimulated chemotaxis in human neutr... [FEBS Lett. 1998] - PubMed result, an observed beneficial mutation for bigger muscles in humans: A Very Muscular Baby Offers Hope Against Diseases - NYTimes.com, in bacteria, an observed beneficial mutation for the ability to eat citrate Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli — PNAS , and an observed beneficial mutation for the ability to digest nylon Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution -- Prijambada et al. 61 (5): 2020 -- Applied and Environmental Microbiology,

and if all those weren't enough (and there are plenty more), then here are literally hundreds of beneficial mutations intentionally induced by radiation exposure, where crop seeds are irradiated to cause mutations, then the plants are grown, the deletrious mutants thrown out, and the beneficial mutants kept : http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...AH_QcyyFkg6wsg


Plus, simple common sense shows that there are plenty of beneficial mutations. A mutation will cause a change in the offspring. So look at your arm - a mutation would make it longer, or shorter. Which is "beneficial", and which is "harmful"? Well, that depends on the environment. If you are living in the trees, the longer arm is beneficial for reaching branches. If you are a runner on the plains,the longer arm is harmful, because it's more weight to carry.

Or look at a rabbit's fur. Is a mutation making the fur white "beneficial", or "harmful"? Well, if that rabbit lives in a semi-tropical forest, the white one is a death sentence, because it would stick out. But if it lives in a snowy region,then the white fur mutation is beneficial - helping it hide in the snow.

See how that works? Mutations are changes, and the environment makes them beneficial or harmful. That's why it's silly to say that, in normal circumstances, that only 1 in 10,000 mutations are beneficial.

Papias

 

[SimonD1]

First of all define evolution. More importantly what exactly do you believe?

Do you believe in the historicity of any of these events or doctrines?

• Red Sea divided; Israel passes through (Ex. 14:21-31)
• Waters of Marah sweetened (Ex. 15:23-25)
• Manna sent daily, except on Sabbath (Ex. 16:14-35)
• Water from the rock at Rephidim (Ex. 17:5-7)
• Nadab and Abihu consumed for offering “strange fire” (Lev. 10:1, 2)
• The conception of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35)
• The Incarnation (John 1:1-12)
• The transfiguration (Matt 17:1-8)
• The resurrection (John 21:1-14)
• The ascension (Luke 2:42-51)
• Inspiration of Scripture by God (2 Tim. 3:16)

If not what are you doing here? If so then what is so different about these passages and the opening chapters of Genesis?

Have a nice day
Mark

i just feel sorry for you guys lulz