Question about Old Earth

[Mallon]

his is only underlined by the fact that mutations have been statistically proven to be either deleterious or benign more than 99% of the time.

Interesting that you didn't say 100% of the time.

 

[Mikecpking]

here is a nice explanation.

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

 

[Papias]

SW wrote:

If your going to challenge my comments: Quote me, then challenge what I've said.

OK. You said:

The facts are the actual evidence. Conclusions may be
based on the evidence IF the evidence is shown to have been
handled in such a perfect way that it is still in it's original condition.
That way it can be retested by a second party for scientific verification.
This was shown not to be the case and OJ was found not guilty
due to lack of evidence.
Or facts.

By that, are you not saying that events in the past can indeed be studied by science?

I don't care what it's like in your mind. Mutations are the destroyer of useful information. If you have a favorite published example of increases in complexity or increase in useful information over time, then present it. The idea is a part of modern culture, despite any scientific support for it.

Mutations can destroy information, they can also add it. To see that, we'll need to cover some basic types of mutations. Here are some basic types of mutations and how they work:

• Duplication of a stretch of DNA. This is like accidentally copying part of a book twice. Example – when making a copy of a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, you end up with a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12

• Deletion of a base pair. AATCTGTC becomes ATCTGTC

• Addition of base pair AATCTGTC becomes ACATCTGTC

• Transposition (like a mirror) AATCTGTC becomes CTGTCTAA

All of these can have no effect, an effect which is selected for, or an affect which is selected against.

To add information, first, take a functional gene, and make an extra copy using the duplication mutation. That won’t hurt the organism, since the second copy is simply redundant. Then use any of the other mutation methods so as to make the second copy do something new. The organism still has the original copy doing whatever it is supposed to do, but now has the added ability of whatever the new gene does.

The addition of new information has been documented many times. For instance, new blood protein alleles have been seen:

Blood -- Single-tube multiplex PCR-SSCP analysis distinguishes 7 common ABO alleles a...



This multiplex PCR-SSCP protocol allows the well-established base changes at 9 nucleotide positions 261, 297, 467, 526, 646, 657, 681, 1059, and 1096 to be assayed simultaneously so that 7 common alleles (A1, A1v, A2, B, O1, O1v, and O2) can be distinguished in a single-tube single-lane format. Each allele was characterized by a set of 3 haplotype-specific SSCP patterns. Chinese (n = 125) and white European (n = 98) samples were analyzed, and their genotypes were found consistent with the serologic phenotypes or could be deduced unambiguously. Fifteen samples (2 Chinese and 13 white European) were each found carrying at least 1 rare allele. Most of these alleles were new and some might be generated by intragenic recombination. This technique is the simplest, quickest, and most informative method reported to date and also readily identifies new alleles.

Papias

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

SW wrote:
If your going to challenge my comments: Quote me, then challenge what I've said.

Nor is the increase of complexity and information over time supported in any way.
​

I don't care what it's like in your mind. Mutations are the destroyer of useful information. If you have a favorite published example of increases in complexity or increase in useful information over time, then present it. The idea is a part of modern culture, despite any scientific support for it.

I do believe this is the very question Dawkins got stumped on, of which was posed by individuals he hadn't known to be creationists. After a heated encounter and throwing them out of his home, he proceeded to the comfort of his study and mashed out a 10 page essay that was completely empty of any solid evidence whatsoever and posted it online. Yes, and the world chalked one up for evolutionary theory...

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Interesting that you didn't say 100% of the time.

It really isn't interesting at all, a small fraction of 1% is what's left. It doesn't change a thing. Hold these statistics up against the amount of evolutionary processes/biodiversity needed to accomplish UCD. Like SKyWriting said, it is just a farce of modern culture. The nature of mutations has been falsified in order to use them to justify evolutionary theory.

 

[Mikecpking]

It really isn't interesting at all, a small fraction of 1% is what's left. It doesn't change a thing. Hold these statistics up against the amount of evolutionary processes/biodiversity needed to accomplish UCD. Like SKyWriting said, it is just a farce of modern culture. The nature of mutations has been falsified in order to use them to justify evolutionary theory.

Evolution is backed up by fossilised evidence showing changes in flora and fauna spanning millions of years; you will not find modern human skeletal fossils mixed in with cretaceous rocks for example.
The fossil record shows change so evolution must have happened.

 

[Assyrian]

I doubt that the rest of scripture was so clear and easy to understand that the word picture of the earth having four corners threw you for a loop.
Revelation 7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.
It was the language used in that culture, and is still appropriate enough for airline pilots to use as their flight plans. A flat map with four corners.
Imagine the difficulty of Moses going up a mountain. Almost as if the earth wasn't flat for Moses. And it says Jesus went up the mountain as well. The then there is mention of valleys. Even more conflict with the "flat earth theory" that was forming in your head. My grandchild is 4 and I think she could handle the passage without concern.

You see, you are doing exactly what I didn't want to do. I wanted to let scripture speak for itself, show me its worldview, not take my knowledge of science and see how I can make scripture fit that. I had come from a traditional church background, found the Lord and was discovering his word for myself. I had enough of traditions being read into scripture, rather than looking to scripture to see what it says. I wanted to do the same with my whole worldview, not just theology but let the bible teach me about the earth the universe and science. But I wanted to see what the bible says for itself not make it fit some outside presuppositions.

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by juvenissun
This reminded me an idiom: the higher you go, the colder it becomes.

Hypoxia?

Very interesting.

The idiom I used is, in fact, a thousands years old Chinese idiom. The natural background is that there was no mountain that high in central China which would cause a problem like hypoxia.

However, today, people (e.g. you) may easily link that old metaphor to updated scientific knowledge such as hypoxia. This would completely demean the metaphor. In a sense, this example could be used to effectively argue against any scientific interpretation of the Bible.

I would reconsider my position seriously if any example of such quality were presented to argue against any idea of creation science. The format has to be:

1. A Bible verse which gives a meaning according to the historical and anthropological background.

2. Modern science add additional meaning to that verse.

3. And, most importantly, the scientific interpretation invalidates the historical meaning of the verse.

Item 3 is the most difficult one. So far, I haven't yet seen any successful example. The modern scientific interpretation always "enhances" the meaning of a Bible verse.

 

[Papias]

Happy wrote:

It really isn't interesting at all, a small fraction of 1% is what's left. It doesn't change a thing. Hold these statistics up against the amount of evolutionary processes/biodiversity needed to accomplish UCD.

In doing the math using the numbers in those posts, 100% - 99% actually equals 1%. Of course those aren't the actual numbers, since the vast majority of mutations are neutral (look at yourself in the mirror, now imagine your nose a little longer or shorter, your eyes a little closer or farther apart, etc, most changes depend on the environment, and may often be unimportant).

Scientists have documented literally thousands of beneficial mutations. We can get into them if you like. We also saw in post #63 (did you read that, Happy?), that adding information is not only seen as easily possible, but has also been directly observed many times.

Some quick math over whether or not this is enough for UCD shows that even a much lower rate of mutation would be quite sufficient. A population of a million animals, with a birth rate of 100,000 a year (quite low), and a few mutations per birth gives 200,000 mutations a year, times, say, 10 million years gives a staggering 2,000,000,000,000 mutations! (do the math yourself!).

Plus, anyone who understands natural selection knows that the higher proportion of harmful mutations vs beneficial ones poses no difficulty at all, since the harmful ones are removed within a generation or two (depending on how harmful) and the beneficial ones are multiplied exponentially by reproduction after the mutation event. Due to that, we could have a lower proportion of beneficial mutations than we see and UCD would still be expected.

Like SKyWriting said, it is just a farce of modern culture. The nature of mutations has been falsified in order to use them to justify evolutionary theory.

Again, do you understand how mutations work? Have you read and understood post #63? Do you see an error in the mutations in post #63? If so, what is that?

Thanks-

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

Interesting that you didn't say 100% of the time.

Odd that anyone would rest their hope on a 1% chance event. All examples I've seen are a very conditional improvement. These isolated instances are not actually improvements to the populations gene pool. They are instances where a deleterious effect is inflicted upon the entire population and one group with a known variation is able to survive the assault better than a second variation. So it can't even be proven that the "beneficial" mutation was a result of the assault or if it was simply a condition that was in place before the problem started.

I'm saying that no one has shown that a beneficial mutation actually exists except to show that one population of people of people were found less susceptible to disease than another. It's simply a case of one population having a higher disease mortality rate than another.

 

[SkyWriting]

You see, you are doing exactly what I didn't want to do. I wanted to let scripture speak for itself, show me its worldview, not take my knowledge of science and see how I can make scripture fit that. I had come from a traditional church background, found the Lord and was discovering his word for myself. I had enough of traditions being read into scripture, rather than looking to scripture to see what it says. I wanted to do the same with my whole worldview, not just theology but let the bible teach me about the earth the universe and science. But I wanted to see what the bible says for itself not make it fit some outside presuppositions.

I covered that situation in my answer as well:

Imagine the difficulty of Moses going up a mountain. Almost as if the earth wasn't flat for Moses. And it says Jesus went up the mountain as well. The then there is mention of valleys.

Even more conflict with the "flat earth theory" that was forming in your head. My grandchild is 4 and I think she could handle the passage without concern.

I imagine your concern was between a square and a circular earth:
Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Job 26:10 He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters
at the boundary between light and darkness. ...



Or perhaps you were influenced and confused by the language of science:

- So most of the time, when the Moon is in its new phase, it does not travel across the Sun’s disk,
- the Moon’s disk almost perfectly matches the size of the Sun’s disk.
- When it is far enough from Earth, the apparent size of its disk actually is smaller than the disk of the Sun. A solar eclipse at this time is called “annular.” In an annular eclipse, a ring of the Sun is visible around the edges of the disk of the Moon.
- over the limb of the Moon on March 13, 1994 to view a distant, nearly full-disk Earth.
- This is the first image of Earth ever taken from another planet that actually shows our home as a planetary disk.

Full disk earth day/night pairs

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...P7U099Lcw&sig2=RN_o4I2G-e28rnFp8zJjww&cad=rja

 

[SkyWriting]

Again, do you understand how mutations work? Have you read and understood post #23? Do you see an error in the mutations in post #23? If so, what is that?
Thanks-
Papias

Got anything relevant?

Actually, the beneficial mutation rate is 0, so that's one error.

Post #23
http://www.christianforums.com/t7512492/#post56093610

 

[Papias]

SW, thanks for pointing out that typo. I mean post #63.

Also, as discussed in post #69, do you understand that harmful mutations are removed by natural selection, so there presence or absence is irrelevant?

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

SW, thanks for pointing out that typo. I mean post #63.

Also, as discussed in post #69, do you understand that harmful mutations are removed by natural selection, so there presence or absence is irrelevant?

Papias

Do you realize that this "removal" process is no quicker than any theoretical improvement process and would be overwhelmed by (99) times as many simultaneous problems to deal with, so any beneficial aspects would be irrelevant? What value is a longer beak (1%) if it has 99 feathers attached to it?(99%)

 

[Papias]

SW wrote:

Do you realize that this "removal" process is no quicker than any theoretical improvement process and would be overwhelmed by (99) times as many simultaneous problems to deal with, so any beneficial aspects would be irrelevant? What value is a longer beak (1%) if it has 99 feathers attached to it?(99%)

An understandable thought. However, animal populations are larger than that one individual you mentioned. Of course all the mutations aren't in the same baby! Take a population of, say, 100,000 (which is really quite small, the population of deer just in Michigan is over 2,000,000 - 20 times as much). So the mutations will usually be on separate individuals, not on the same individual. Thus, the mutations will or will not be transmitted to the next generation according to the common sense observation of whether they help or hurt.


So let's try an example:


So, out of that population of 100,000 there will be around 20 to 80,000 births in one breeding season, depending on the species. (actually, it's much higher in many species that have litters of more than 2 babies). Of those 50,000 say there are 5000 harmful mutations and 50 beneficial mutations (that's 100 to 1 harmful to beneficial). So those 5,000 fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of the babies will reproduce anyway, most just lose the competition even being unmutated), and most importantly, of course those 50 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 40 of them do so, giving just 3X babies, or 120.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 40 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
120 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of all babies will reproduce anyway), and most importantly, of course those 170 beneficial mutants (120 + 50 new ones) are more likely to reproduce, so say that 150 of them do so, giving 450 babies (again, only 3X, a conservative number since it's much higher in many species).

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 450 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
450 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of all babies will reproduce anyway), and most importantly, of course those 500 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 400 of them do so, giving 1,200 babies (again, only 3X, a conservative number since it's much higher in many species).

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 1,200 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
1200 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 1,250 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 1000 of them do so, giving 3,000 babies.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 3,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
3,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 3,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 2,700 of them do so, giving 8,000 babies.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 8,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
8,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 8,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 7,000 of them do so, giving 21,000 babies.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 21,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
21,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 21,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that only 18,000 of them do so, giving 54,000 babies.

Hold on though. Our land can only support 50,000 babies per generation, so we only get 50,000 of those.

But look at what has happened! Even though there were always 100 harmful mutations to only 1 good mutation, what one would naively think is an overwhelmingly bad rate, yet at the end of the day we have seen that the good mutations have now spread to every single member of the population, and the harmful mutations are gone!

You can run this again and again with different ratios of good to bad mutations, different mutation rates, and so on. I've changed all those numbers, and you know what? Biologist have too, both by looking at different actual animal populations, and by computer simulations. Both the real world and the simulations show that same things. Those are:

1. The higher the overall mutation rate, the faster the good mutations add up.
2. The faster the reproduction, the faster the good mutations add up.
3. The rate of harmful mutations has no effect. 3 to 1 bad to good, or 20 to 1, or 50 to 1, or 100 to 1 or whatever, has no effect because the harmful mutations are removed by selection anyway. Try it for yourself and see.
4. The larger the total number of good mutations, the faster they spread though the population, but this is less important than conclusion #2.

Does that all help? Looking at it in detail shows that it's all common sense, nothing that's hard to understand.

Papias

 

[gluadys]

You can run this again and again with different ratios of good to bad mutations, different mutation rates, and so on. I've changed all those numbers, and you know what? Biologist have too, both by looking at different actual animal populations, and by computer simulations. Both the real world and the simulations show that same things. Those are:

1. The higher the overall mutation rate, the faster the good mutations add up.
2. The faster the reproduction, the faster the good mutations add up.
3. The rate of harmful mutations has no effect. 3 to 1 bad to good, or 20 to 1, or 50 to 1, or 100 to 1 or whatever, has no effect because the harmful mutations are removed by selection anyway. Try it for yourself and see.
4. The larger the total number of good mutations, the faster they spread though the population, but this is less important than conclusion #2.

Does that all help? Looking at it in detail shows that it's all common sense, nothing that's hard to understand.

Papias

Some years ago I did a formal debate with Mark Kennedy who also stressed the numerical superiority of harmful over beneficial mutations, saying the former would overwhelm the latter. I would link to it, but it seems to have been removed from the formal debate section in a general cleanup of old threads.

Most of one post in that debate set out the mathematics of selection and I specifically included an example of a population affected simultaneously by a slightly beneficial mutation, a slightly harmful mutation and a seriously harmful mutation. Using quite conservative rates, it took only 6-8 generations for the beneficial mutation to dominate the population.

I don't know why this consequence seems so difficult to grasp.

 

[SkyWriting]

SW wrote:

<snip>
Does that all help? Looking at it in detail shows that it's all common sense, nothing that's hard to understand.

Papias

For one, the call on "common sense" is a smoke screened request for "Swallow my assumptions hook, line & sinker". For example, you've swallowed the old old school argument that mutations have a direct effect on reproduction. That's not the case.

I admit that my illustration was silly with 1 bird beak. So I'll change it and you can shoot that one down as well for being too general.

Out of a population of 100 bats, one has a beneficial immunity to "White Nose Syndrome" and the rest of the population has 99 other mutations as well as susceptibility to W.N.S. and dies.

Or two males are immune and they watch night football games together till they die.

Or three all die in separate caves. Or (much more likely) 3 generations (grandad, mom, and daughter) in one family continue to have family reunions yearly till they pass away.

Or, buying your assumption that mutations only affect reproduction, lets say that one family of birds has an extra pair of graspers to hold it's mate still while mating. Who is this family going to mate with?

The fact is that the DNA system has built in mechanisms for creating variation as well as screening processes to keep the variation limited to the amount of change that the system has been engineered to handle. Some of that variation can be considered "beneficial" mutation because it allows an organism to fit better into a particular environmental niche. But none of the variation falls outside of pre-designed parameters. And I don't believe that humans even have the technology to analyze what those limits are yet. Especially considering we only have one (to 100) current generations of species living at one time to do research with. Likely a number of controlled experiments spanning thousands of years could make some progress on it.

You misused the concept of "common sense" as an attempt to say that "numbers don't lie". But I'll use it properly referring to a fact that in undeniable in the world:
If mutations are good, why don't we love mutants?

Or worst case, why is nobody trying to identify the hypothetical 1% that is superior to the rest?

 

[Papias]

SW wrote:

For example, you've swallowed the old old school argument that mutations have a direct effect on reproduction. That's not the case.

Some mutations will obviously affect reproduction, especially by helping or hurting the organizms chances of survival before reproduction. Those that don't affect reproduction are irrelevant to natural selection. Maybe you'd like to name some mutations that don't affect reproduction that you think would be relevant to natural selection?

Other than that, which assumptions did you disagree with? If they are not reasonable, we can change them.

I admit that my illustration was silly with 1 bird beak. So I'll change it and you can shoot that one down as well for being too general.

Out of a population of 100 bats, one has a beneficial immunity to "White Nose Syndrome" and the rest of the population has 99 other mutations as well as susceptibility to W.N.S. and dies.

It's not too general, but let me better understand what you are saying.

Are you saying that of the 100, all of them have some noticeable mutations? That's not how it goes - mutations are rare overall. So maybe 1 has the immunity, 90 have no mutation, and 9 have other mutations?

If you are saying that regardless of their mutations, the White Nose Syndrome (WNS) kills them all, then OK, they go extinct. After all, the fossil record shows us that nearly all species that have existed have gone extinct. It certainly happens if a change (like WNS) is too fast for evolution to allow them to adapt to.

Or two males are immune and they watch night football games together till they die.

Or three all die in separate caves. Or (much more likely) 3 generations (grandad, mom, and daughter) in one family continue to have family reunions yearly till they pass away.

OK, are those additional cases where they just go extinct? I don't see the point of the example.

Or, buying your assumption that mutations only affect reproduction, lets say that one family of birds has an extra pair of graspers to hold it's mate still while mating. Who is this family going to mate with?

I'm saying that only those mutations that affect reproduction are relevant to natural selection. Those mutations may be relevant in other mechanisms of evolution (like genetic drift), but the whole reason we are discussing them is because I pointed out that harmful mutations are removed by natural selection, so that's why only those mutations that effect reproduction are being discussed. Basically, if a mutation is harmful, it will be removed by natural selection, because it affects reproduction.

The fact is that the DNA system has built in mechanisms for creating variation as well as screening processes to keep the variation limited to the amount of change that the system has been engineered to handle.

What evidence do you have for any of that? They sound like just bare assertions to me.

Some of that variation can be considered "beneficial" mutation because it allows an organism to fit better into a particular environmental niche.

Beneficial mutations are those that allow for more kids that survive to have kids. That's what "fit" means.

But none of the variation falls outside of pre-designed parameters.

What evidence to you have that any such "pre-designed parameters" exist? Or are you just making that up?

And I don't believe that humans even have the technology to analyze what those limits are yet.

Oh, now I see. You did just make up the "pre-designed parameters", and now are saying that we don't have any evidence for them because we don't have the technology to see them.

Hey, did you know that are these invisible fairies that dance on your head, but we don't have the technology to see them?

Especially considering we only have one (to 100) current generations of species living at one time to do research with. Likely a number of controlled experiments spanning thousands of years could make some progress on it.

We have several different lines of evidence that give us an incredible amount of information on billions of years of life on earth. Just as with using DNA to examine OJ's guilt or innocence, science is used all the time to understand events in the past.

You misused the concept of "common sense" as an attempt to say that "numbers don't lie". But I'll use it properly referring to a fact that in undeniable in the world:
If mutations are good, why don't we love mutants?

If you prefer, I can simply change that to saying "the numbers don't lie", because they don't.

We often do love mutants. Every good aspect of our body was initally a mutation, down to even basic metabolic reactions, like being able to use oxygen. Mutants have provided crops to save the lives of literally millions of people, and given us plenty of other benfits (like bigger pork chops).

Or worst case, why is nobody trying to identify the hypothetical 1% that is superior to the rest?

There is no difficulty in identifying beneficial mutations - they are often obvious (such as being able to digest nylon, or hold the breath longer underwater, among others observed). The same goes for many harmful mutations, such as having legs on the head, or missing legs, or missing pigmentation (albino) and so on.

Do you really think that we don't have tons of documented mutations, many beneficial and many harmful? Some studies have found that about 70% of mutations are harmful, the rest neutral or beneficial.


Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

Some mutations will obviously affect reproduction, especially by helping or
hurting the organisms chances of survival before reproduction. Those that
don't affect reproduction are irrelevant to natural selection. Maybe you'd
like to name some mutations that don't affect reproduction that you think
would be relevant to natural selection? <snip>

The term "obvious" is another phrase used to avoid making any direct claims of fact.

For the sake of argument, lets say that "mutations" cause one to be
susceptible to diseases. Please do take credit for any on the list below that
do "obviously affect reproduction". My goal is to point out that your view
that reproduction factors are the major factor in evolutionary theory as an
incorrect one.

It reminds me of a evolution-supporter person who claimed that ducks have
a lot of chicks and they don't all live because the ecosystem can't sustain
them all. Suggesting that most starve to death. In the actual world, 7 out
of 10 chicks "disappear" into the ecosystem the first day they swim out on
the lake after being born. They hardly have the opportunity to get hungry.
(I've watched.)

Again, assuming there are 99 negative factors for every one beneficial...
Why is the no listing for the 1 out of 100 "Good" diseases....or what ever
the term your going to use. Why don't we even have a word for "good
diseases?" Creationist conspiracy?

Bacterial Infections and Mycoses [C01] +

• Virus Diseases [C02] +
• Parasitic Diseases [C03] +
• Neoplasms [C04] +
• Musculoskeletal Diseases [C05] +
• Digestive System Diseases [C06] +
• Stomatognathic Diseases [C07] +
• Respiratory Tract Diseases [C08] +
• Otorhinolaryngologic Diseases [C09] +
• Nervous System Diseases [C10] +
• Eye Diseases [C11] +
• Male Urogenital Diseases [C12] +
• Cardiovascular Diseases [C14] +
• Hemic and Lymphatic Diseases [C15] +
• Congenital, Hereditary, and Neonatal Diseases and
  Abnormalities [C16] +
• Skin and Connective Tissue Diseases [C17] +
• Nutritional and Metabolic Diseases [C18] +
• Endocrine System Diseases [C19] +
• Immune System Diseases [C20] +
• Disorders of Environmental Origin [C21] +
• Animal Diseases [C22] +
• Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms [C23] +
  
  If natural selection was heavily dependent reproductive factors then most

species would tend to die very soon after reproduction. Granted, some do.

- Why didn't Jesus tell us to kill off all the weak and let the strong and adaptable live good full lives?
- Why didn't Jesus as well as the apostles have 100's of children?
- What could be better for mankind's evolution than infusing humans with Jesus' DNA?

In other words, why is some of Evolutionary theory a vile and loathsome lie?

 

[Papias]

SW wrote:

For the sake of argument, lets say that "mutations" cause one to be
susceptible to diseases. Please do take credit for any on the list below that
do "obviously affect reproduction". My goal is to point out that your view
that reproduction factors are the major factor in evolutionary theory as an
incorrect one.

All of those diseases would make an organism more likely to die or be handicapped before reproduction. So they would all affect reproduction.

If you have a mutation that makes you see poorly, that will effect reproduction if eyesight is important in getting your food, because with poorer eyesight, you are more likely to starve, and as a result, not reproduce.

I don't see how listing diseases suggests that reproductive success is not important for natural selection.

If natural selection was heavily dependent reproductive factors then most
species would tend to die very soon after reproduction. Granted, some do.

Nearly all do (after their last possible reproductive season - remember that many animals reproduce more than once, and as such natural selection should favor changes that help them live to mate again). What species of animals are you thinking of that lives long after losing the ability to reproduce? I can think of one, which is due to subsequent care.

- Why didn't Jesus tell us to kill off all the weak and let the strong and adaptable live good full lives?

Why would that be good in a human society?

- Why didn't Jesus as well as the apostles have 100's of children?

Maybe because their goal was to bring us Christianity, not to maximize their own reproductive fitness?

- What could be better for mankind's evolution than infusing humans with Jesus' DNA?

Not sure why that's relevant, nor sure how you know what Jesus' DNA is like.


***************************

You didn't aswer several of my questions. Specificially:

• Maybe you'd like to name some mutations that don't affect reproduction that you think would be relevant to natural selection?
  Other than that, which assumptions did you disagree with? If they are not reasonable, we can change them.
• Do you really think that we don't have tons of documented mutations, many beneficial and many harmful? Some studies have found that about 70% of mutations are harmful, the rest neutral or beneficial.
• Are you saying that of the 100 (bats in your example), all of them have some noticeable mutations?
  OK, are those additional cases where the bats just go extinct?
• What evidence do you have for any of those DNA assertions?
  
  Remember, the whole context of this recent topic is your assertion that beneficial mutations get "overwhelmed" by harmful mutations. I gave a numerical example to show how natural selection renders the harmful mutations irrelevant, regardless of whether or not there are more of them. Are there specific parts of that or of the example that you see as unrealistic?

Papias