proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

I have not attacked you. I have attacked your evidence, your unsupported assertions, your cavalier handling of information, your ignorance of basic principles, etc. You, I know nothing about. Since you are now on Ignore it is likely to remain that way.

To add to this, I don't consider it an "attack" on a person to point out that they lack understanding on a particular topic. If they don't understand a topic, then they don't understand a topic; it's just a basic fact.

I've been called out on errors on this forum before. If you get called out on an error, learn from it and move on. That's why I don't understand the people who continually double down on their misunderstandings. It's bizarre.

 

[Ophiolite]

To add to this, I don't consider it an "attack" on a person to point out that they lack understanding on a particular topic. If they don't understand a topic, then they don't understand a topic; it's just a basic fact.

I've been called out on errors on this forum before. If you get called out on an error, learn from it and move on. That's why I don't understand the people who continually double down on their misunderstandings. It's bizarre.

I am in complete agreement. (I tried hitting the Agree icon multiple times, but it doesn't work that way. )

Making an error, having it pointed out, then accepting it is how we learn. I get angry when someone points out an error I have made, but angry at myself for carelessness, grateful to the person who spotted it. The opposite approach is unscientific. As Spock would say, "It's not logical, Jim."

But, to be clear, I've seen plenty of "scientists" on other forums who could not admit to mistakes and creationists on this forum who are ready to do so. It's a human condition, that anyone can suffer from.

We are quite off-topic now, but one of the things that frustrates me with most creationists I have "debated" with is that I could put up a far superior argument against evolution and for creation than any of them. It just annoys me to see incompetent arguments put forward.

 

[pitabread]

desire has never outweighed empericial evidence and never will.

Just one more item, since you claim you are interested in 'empirical evidence'.

Here's a paper discussing the distribution of alleles related to the MC1R gene: Evidence for Variable Selective Pressures at MC1R

The salient point is this:

The absence of amino acid variants in Africa—as well as their low frequency in African Americans and in Asians from Papua New Guinea and India (table 1), where skin pigmentation is typically very dark—implies strong functional constraint on MC1R, probably as a means to minimize sensitivity to UV radiation. The presence of a small number of nonsynonymous variants in the African American and southern-Asian sample populations can be explained by admixture. The other non-African samples, in contrast, reveal high frequencies of a large number of nonsynonymous variants.

In a nutshell, what they found is that there are relatively few variants of the gene involved in dark skin pigmentation in areas with significant UV radiation from sunlight.

Conversely, there are considerably more variants in regions with less UV radiation (no doubt because there are more ways to not produce skin pigmentation than ways to produce it).

And with what we know about skin pigmentation and solar radiation (i.e. it protects against skin cancer in regions with high UV radiation and vise-versa impedes Vitamin D production in areas with less UV radiation), this points to an evolutionary scenario for the distribution of said genes. Highly conserved variations under selective pressures in regions like Africa and Southern Asia, versus non-conserved genes not under selective constraint (thus more mutated variations) in other regions.

A perfect example of the evolutionary history of why people have different skin color.

Additional references:

Cell Research - Melanocortin-1 receptor gene variants in four Chinese ethnic populations
Colloquium Paper: Human skin pigmentation as an adaptation to UV radiation

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just one more item, since you claim you are interested in 'empirical evidence'.

Here's a paper discussing the distribution of alleles related to the MC1R gene: Evidence for Variable Selective Pressures at MC1R

The salient point is this:



In a nutshell, what they found is that there are relatively few variants of the gene involved in dark skin pigmentation in areas with significant UV radiation from sunlight.

Conversely, there are considerably more variants in regions with less UV radiation (no doubt because there are more ways to not produce skin pigmentation than ways to produce it).

And with what we know about skin pigmentation and solar radiation (i.e. it protects against skin cancer in regions with high UV radiation and vise-versa impedes Vitamin D production in areas with less UV radiation), this points to an evolutionary scenario for the distribution of said genes. Highly conserved variations under selective pressures in regions like Africa and Southern Asia, versus non-conserved genes not under selective constraint (thus more mutated variations) in other regions.

A perfect example of the evolutionary history of why people have different skin color.

Additional references:

Cell Research - Melanocortin-1 receptor gene variants in four Chinese ethnic populations
Colloquium Paper: Human skin pigmentation as an adaptation to UV radiation

Actually the salient point was their comment “can be explained by admixture”. So they interbred sometime in the past, before they started inbreeding and set in certain genetic traits, reducing variability.

So again, if interbreeding (admixture) explains it just fine, the point I have been making all along, why would you think I would find it surprising that admixture occurred?

We both agree Noah’s descendants mated with one another. But I am not ignoring that Asians became Asians, setting in their distinctive traits from inbreeding only with those of the same traits. Selective breeding, just as every animal species and subspecies alive today does.

I expect nothing less then in the past, nor in the future.

 

[rjs330]

Probably because fundamentalists have created that false dichotomy in their minds and after seeing the massive evidence supporting evolution and deep time have concluded with one of the two choices fundamentalists presented them.

What in the world are you talking about? With few exceptions, the nonbelievers here respect the theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists.

Yes because they are evolutionists. Because they don't believe what the Bible says either. You make my point very well. Thank you.

 

[rjs330]

Wrong, atheists don't think that the bible contains any divine words. Not trusting the words of a deity, and not trusting words other people have attributed to a deity are not the same thing. You wouldn't view any statements made by, say, Vishnu in the Hindu Vedas as the literal words of that god, right? So it would be inaccurate to say "you don't trust the word of Vishnu".

I wasn't speaking to you, but Speedy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

To add to this, I don't consider it an "attack" on a person to point out that they lack understanding on a particular topic. If they don't understand a topic, then they don't understand a topic; it's just a basic fact.

I've been called out on errors on this forum before. If you get called out on an error, learn from it and move on. That's why I don't understand the people who continually double down on their misunderstandings. It's bizarre.

Nor do I, but to claim an error or ignorance, then fail to show either one, is simply an attack on the poster and not the post.

It’s like if I were to say your wrong, without saying how you are wrong, that you don’t understand, without saying how you don’t understand, it becomes simply an attack to avoid the subject matter. It’s a cop out, and shows fear and lack of evidence.

 

[rjs330]

I don't believe that Ex 20:11 was written by God.

Was anything in the Bible written by God?

 

[pitabread]

Actually the salient point was their comment “can be explained by admixture”. So they interbred sometime in the past, before they started inbreeding and set in certain genetic traits, reducing variability.

If you re-read that sentence, they are specifically referring to the small number of nonsynonymous variants in African and South-Asian populations. And it's a given there is some gene flow between populations since humans are, for the most part, not genetically isolated from one another.

The overall point though points to an evolutionary distribution of alleles: conserved in high UV regions, and not conserved in low UV regions.

 

[rjs330]

No, I'm just talking about Christians and those they can evangelize without recourse to a literal and inerrant interpretation of Genesis. All Christians witness for Christ and the Gospel by authority of scripture. But the authority of scripture rests on its divine providence, not its adherence to a particular literary genre.

Divine Providence of what? What authority does scripture have? Why believe something written by men?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you re-read that sentence, they are specifically referring to the small number of nonsynonymous variants in African and South-Asian populations. And it's a given there is some gene flow between populations since humans are, for the most part, not genetically isolated from one another.

The overall point though points to an evolutionary distribution of alleles: conserved in high UV regions, and not conserved in low UV regions.

Not conserved because selective breeding breeds for certain traits. What is not bred for is not conserved.

If I breed shorter haired say German Shepard’s with shorter haired German Shepard’s, eventually I will end up with short haired German Shepard’s, the longer hair trait no longer being conserved.

Just as Cardinals selectively mate with other Cardinals with specific plumage, so that in time only that plumage is conserved, and other variants lost except where their range may overlap other subspecies.

I am aware of the evolutionary PR slant, it just isn’t needed to explain anything, just selective breeding for specific traits which all animals do, including man. We are simply no longer a geographic species, but a global one now, our ranges constantly overlapping. But before this lighter skinned people started to mate with only lighter skinned people, until that trait was set and the variant for dark skin was no longer conserved.

Africans live in Alaska, their descendants don’t get lighter unless they mate with lighter skinned people’s. Caucasian’s live in Africa, their descendants don’t getvdarker unless they mate with darker skinned people. Only admixture and selective breeding causes variation at the subspecies and species level.

 

[pitabread]

Nor do I, but to claim an error or ignorance, then fail to show either one, is simply an attack on the poster and not the post.

When we first engaged, I tried to get into how genetics really works. But you seemed to have little interest in it, and consequently continue to repeat the same refrain over and over.

Ultimately only you can control whether or not you want to learn about how things really works in biology. From where I sit, and this is strictly my opinion, I think your primary interest (like most of us here) is simply to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[Speedwell]

Was anything in the Bible written by God?

No. It was inspired by God. It is witness to the words of God, the Ten Commandments, for example, although Ex 20:11 is not a part of them.

 

[pitabread]

Not conserved because selective breeding breeds for certain traits. What is not bred for is not conserved.

Once again, the evidence points to selective constraint based on environment:

The absence of amino acid variants in Africa—as well as their low frequency in African Americans and in Asians from Papua New Guinea and India (table 1), where skin pigmentation is typically very dark—implies strong functional constraint on MC1R, probably as a means to minimize sensitivity to UV radiation.

Evidence for Variable Selective Pressures at MC1R

This is what the empirical evidence shows. You claim you're all about the empirical evidence, are you not?

If you'd rather hand-wave it away instead, by all means do so. All you're doing is reinforcing you're not really interested in how things really work when it comes to genetics and biology.

 

[Speedwell]

Divine Providence of what? What authority does scripture have? Why believe something written by men?

Sorry for the spelling error. "Provenance" is what I meant. Scriptures have the authority of divine inspiration, just as St. Paul tells us in II Tim 3:16

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When we first engaged, I tried to get into how genetics really works. But you seemed to have little interest in it, and consequently continue to repeat the same refrain over and over.

Ultimately only you can control whether or not you want to learn about how things really works in biology. From where I sit, and this is strictly my opinion, I think your primary interest (like most of us here) is simply to argue for the sake of arguing.

Yet my point remains. Which I need to repeat because the truth goes unheard.

Husky remain Husky. Mastiff remain Mastiff. When they mate a new variant suddenly appears.

Just as every single fossil in the fossil record remains the same, with new variants suddenly appearing.

You simply can not see the mating that occurred between subspecies to create that new subspecies from a pile of bones.

Yet you won’t apply what you observe in the here and now to the past.

In my opinion you are arguing just to argue, while ignoring the empericial data. I’m not asking you to accept life propagated differently in the past than we observe today. Why would you ask me to ignore how we observe life to propagate and new variants appear for something you have never observed because you claim it takes millions of years? Why should I accept that when we see new variants appear every time two subspecies mate, and you want it to be different long, long ago, where no one can test that theory. But you can test mine, just mate any two subspecies and watch a new one come into existence. Then apply that fact to the fossil record....

 

[Speedwell]

Yes because they are evolutionists. Because they don't believe what the Bible says either. You make my point very well. Thank you.

We certainly don't believe what you think the Bible says--not the same thing as not believing the Bible. What you believe about the Bible is what you believe about the Bible. But you don't own the Bible or Christianity. Your beliefs about the Bible are not necessarily the only possible beliefs and are not normative for the rest of Christianity.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Once again, the evidence points to selective constraint based on environment:



Evidence for Variable Selective Pressures at MC1R

This is what the empirical evidence shows. You claim you're all about the empirical evidence, are you not?

If you'd rather hand-wave it away instead, by all means do so. All you're doing is reinforcing you're not really interested in how things really work when it comes to genetics and biology.

It’s the same evolutionary PR they preach about finches. Talking about environment and selective pressures, while ignoring that admixture happening right under their noses.

No one is disputing the facts, darker skin and lighter skin. Just the cause. I say if I mate lighter skinned people with lighter skinned people I’ll get lighter skinned people.

Just as we got cats with no hair from mating cats with shorter and shorter hair, sparser and sparser hair.

I certainly don’t deny that I might have a gene mutate that makes me lighter skinned. But that gene does not become fixed in the population, unless the population consists solely of my descendants.

Let’s test both theories. Take 1000 rabbits. Blast 50 with radiation to cause random mutations. Only those descended from that specific rabbit will possess this mutation. Unless all the others die, leaving only its descendants, it will not fix in the population.

Now according to you this random mutation will fix itself into the population to others not descended from this one rabbit.

So let’s test it. Get a biologist to conduct it and let’s find out who is correct.

 

[Jimmy D]

It was your contention inbreeding reduces genetic variability. Every animal alive participates in this. Black bears tend to mate only with black bears. Cardinals only with Cardinals. Loss of genetic variability implies greater variability before the loss. Again, if you wish to call science magic, that is your prerogative. But why you refuse to accept your own claims now that I pointed out it must have once meant greater variability is beyond me. You seemed to have no problem with it until the logical conclusion was pointed out to you.

No, it occurs when the Asian combines its genomes with the African and increases the genetic variability in its offspring. Variability that both lost during inbreeding.

I understand it perfectly. That’s why I have no problem accepting black bears remain black bears, because inbreeding set in its genetic traits.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed this post... otherwise I would have to draw attention to your intellectual dishonesty.

...................................................

Are you suggesting that two unrelated members of a species reproducing is "inbreeding"?

Do you accept the fact that animals actually avoid inbreeding?

I don't want to confuse you with facts but....

Wolf packs generally consist of a breeding pair and their maturing offspring that help provision and protect pack young. Because the reproductive tenure in wolves is often short, reproductively mature offspring might replace their parents, resulting in sibling or parent-offspring matings. To determine the extent of incestuous pairings, we measured relatedness based on variability in 20 microsatellite loci of mated pairs, parent-offspring pairs, and siblings in two populations of gray wolves. Our 16 sampled mated pairs had values of relatedness not overlapping those of known parent-offspring or sibling dyads, which is consistent with their being unrelated or distantly related. These results suggest that full siblings or a parent and its offspring rarely mate and that incest avoidance is an important constraint on gray wolf behavioral ecology

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255582185_Is_Incest_Common_in_Gray_Wolf_Packs

Please stop saying inbreeding if you mean breeding... they're different things.

.............................................

It's only one example amongst many others that refutes your nonsense.

Yes, if animals are inbreeding genetic diversity can decrease (although not always), however, as you have been told, inbreeding refers to inscestuous relationships amongst close siblings etc.... which is not the norm in the creatures you keep mentioning.

Just to reinforce the point here's a paper about the Black Bears you keep mentioning...


Sex-biased natal dispersal and inbreeding avoidance in American black bears as revealed by spatial genetic analyses.

We tested the hypothesis that sex-biased natal dispersal reduces close inbreeding in American black bears, a solitary species that exhibits nearly complete male dispersal and female philopatry. Using microsatellite DNA and spatial data from reproductively mature bears (>or= 4 years old), we examined the spatial genetic structure of two distinct populations in New Mexico from 1993 to 2000. As predicted, relatedness (r) and the frequency of close relationships (parent-offspring or full siblings) decreased with distance among female dyads, but little change was observed among male or opposite-sex dyads. Neighbouring females were more closely related than neighbouring males. The potential for inbreeding was low. Most opposite-sex pairs that lived sufficiently close to facilitate mating were unrelated, and few were close relatives. We found no evidence that bears actively avoided inbreeding in their selection of mates from this nearby pool, as mean r and relationship frequencies did not differ between potential and actual mating pairs (determined by parentage analysis). These basic patterns were apparent in both study areas despite a nearly two-fold difference in density. However, the sex bias in dispersal was less pronounced in the lower-density area, based on proportions of bears with male and female relatives residing nearby. This result suggests that male bears may respond to reduced competition by decreasing their rate or distance of dispersal. Evidence supports the hypothesis that inbreeding avoidance is achieved by means of male-biased dispersal but also indicates that competition (for mates or resources) modifies dispersal patterns.

..............................................

Now, before you find an example to suggest that that closely related animals do sometimes reproduce, I'm not saying it never happens - but that such incidences are not the norm in general.


Maybe you should actually do a bit of research before you post your nonsense instead of just inventing things which you think will help your case, the amount of times on this thread your "ideas" have been refuted is getting embarassing.


I'll just leave you with a bit of reading material.
Inbreeding avoidance - Wikipedia

 

[Jimmy D]

I certainly don’t deny that I might have a gene mutate that makes me lighter skinned. But that gene does not become fixed in the population, unless the population consists solely of my descendants.

LOL, Denial is not just a river in Africa.