Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[omega2xx]

Did you know that "presbyterian" anagrams to "best in prayer"?

That is interesting.

I like your tag line. I always heard it, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You would if you could but you can't. It is amusing than none of you evos are willing to take 5 minuets to prove me wrong. You have in effect prove me right. Thanks.

We've been over this many times. Your refusal to accept evidence leads to others refusing to post more and more evidence. Your continuous dishonesty is a very poor reflection of yourself. Any lurkers by now will be well aware that you have no interest in evidence and appear not to understand genetics or evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

When man tinkers with the process, it is no longer natural selection. All you described was similar to vacinating against a disease.

Oh dear, I think that that paper was slightly above your pay grade although to be fair I didn't expect you to actually read or understand it, let alone address it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Mutations don't affect our DNA, they affect our genes

Oh wow, are you messing with me? Genes are a part of our DNA. Any mutation that impacts a gene must be affecting DNA, because genes are in DNA, made of DNA.

Your statement is like this one, and is incorrect in a similar way: "cutting off my arm doesn't affect my body, just my arm."

Some genes are dormant but no land animal has aquatic genes.

-_- just gonna ignore the fact that some of the key developmental genes for land animal jaws are identical to those which contribute to gill formation in fish, and that during embryonic development, land animals such as humans develop unnecessary structures entirely analogous to those which become gills in fish because of these shared genes. Also, what about lungfish, which have entirely functional genes for both breathing air and water? And did you forget that most amphibians that breathe air as adults and walk on land start out aquatic, like the tadpoles of frogs? Are you going to deny that tadpoles have genes necessary for an aquatic lifestyle?

Calling Christians "flat earthers" exposes your ignorance of Christianity.

-_- I wasn't calling Christians "flat Earthers". I was suggesting that the fact that creationists often imply that evolution supporters have some sort of emotional attachment was similar to how flat Earthers talk about people having an emotional attachment to the idea that the Earth is a sphere.

Which, by the way, you did imply that evolution supporters such as myself would have some sort of emotional turmoil if evolution was disproven, to enough of an extent that we would willfully ignore evidence against the theory.

 

[PsychoSarah]

but you said that land animal has a pseudogene for gills. do you have any reference for that claim? what is the name of this pseudogene?

I want to put it on the record that I hate the name of this gene: The Sonic the Hedgehog gene. Develops gills and other respiratory structures in fish, and contributes to jaws and limbs in vertebrates such as ourselves. The reason for the difference being other genes contributing to embryonic development. Sonic hedgehog gene provides evidence that our limbs may have evolved from sharks’ gills

Regardless as to whether or not our limbs evolved from the process that produces the respiratory system of fish or not, you cannot deny that there are genes relevant to gill formation in fish in the human genome.

I also have an interesting source in which the human genome was compared to fish genomes in order to help determine which sequences in the human genome were likely to have no function (as DNA sequences without function tend to mutate far more frequently than those with a function, so there would be more differences in the parts of the DNA that do nothing in fish and humans than those which have a function). Exploiting human–fish genome comparisons for deciphering gene regulation | Human Molecular Genetics | Oxford Academic

Mentioned is this limitation on the effectiveness of this method: "While several limitations, such as the small number of conserved sequences between these species, preclude the widespread use of this type of sequence comparison in most genomic regions, fascinating lessons have already been learned from the comparisons between humans and fish."

But, this section is by far the most relevant to our conversation: "An important observation emerging from these studies was that a significant portion of these human–fish conserved non-coding sequences are located in the vicinity of genes involved in early embryonic development, whose products frequently are DNA-binding proteins, suggesting their roles as transcription factors (16). Many of these transcription factors, thought to be regulated by these non-coding human–fish elements, are involved in various morphogenic processes during embryonic development that are, by and large, shared by most vertebrates. The molecular mechanisms underlying these similarities in morphogenesis have been gradually uncovered, and appear to be predicated precisely on the regionalized and/or dynamic expression throughout embryogenesis of these transcription factors, in whose chromosomal neighborhoods many human–fish conserved non-coding sequences reside. Thus, the observation that both the genes encoding the transcription factors and the genetic switches controlling their expression appear to have been conserved throughout hundreds of millions of years of evolution supports the notion that this set of sequences, literally ‘fossil DNA’ embedded in our genomes, constitutes the ‘core genome’ elements of vertebrates."

HOX genes are key genes conserved between most animals, and they relate to embryonic development. We have a few HOX genes that contribute to the formation of gills in fish embryos (hence the gill flaps formed in the embryos), and the reason why they don't become gills is due to a difference in regulatory genes. This is why embryos of animals with very dissimilar bodies look very similar up to a point (especially all mammals, I can't even tell most of those apart from each other until certain developmental milestones occur).

https://8point3.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/tumblr_m70rz9lgs11raf8dvo1_5001.jpg bat
http://www.lyminzheng.com/images/Human_Embryo_-_Approximately_8_weeks_estimated_gestational_age.jpg human
https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/7/77/Dog_fetus_day_30.jpg dog
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evo/development.jpg snake, chicken, and possum.

 

[PsychoSarah]

When man tinkers with the process, it is no longer natural selection. All you described was similar to vacinating against a disease.

Dude, no, detecting the impact of natural selection is not the same as interfering with it.

It's more like this: They compared the genes of people that historically have been at risk for contracting malaria with those with minimal to no historical risk of the disease, and were able to correctly identify genes which provided a resistance to malaria solely by the differences between common gene variations within each group, as people that have been at risk for the disease for many generations will have natural selection pressures that promote genes that grant a resistance to the disease (and thus a high frequency of malaria resistance genes), and people that have experienced practically no risk to the disease for many generations will not experience that selective pressure and thus malaria resistance genes would be comparatively rare among that group.

That is, this is the result one would predict using evolutionary models, and when put into practice, it worked.

 

[omega2xx]

Dude, no, detecting the impact of natural selection is not the same as interfering with it.

It's more like this: They compared the genes of people that historically have been at risk for contracting malaria with those with minimal to no historical risk of the disease, and were able to correctly identify genes which provided a resistance to malaria solely by the differences between common gene variations within each group, as people that have been at risk for the disease for many generations will have natural selection pressures that promote genes that grant a resistance to the disease (and thus a high frequency of malaria resistance genes), and people that have experienced practically no risk to the disease for many generations will not experience that selective pressure and thus malaria resistance genes would be comparatively rare among that group.

That is, this is the result one would predict using evolutionary models, and when put into practice, it worked.

Identifying genes does not prove natural selection. In any case the species did not change.

 

[omega2xx]

Oh wow, are you messing with me? Genes are a part of our DNA. Any mutation that impacts a gene must be affecting DNA, because genes are in DNA, made of DNA.

Your statement is like this one, and is incorrect in a similar way: "cutting off my arm doesn't affect my body, just my arm."

DNA carries genetic instruction, but a mutation only affects the gene, not the DNA

-_- just gonna ignore the fact that some of the key developmental genes for land animal jaws are identical to those which contribute to gill formation in fish, and that during embryonic development, land animals such as humans develop unnecessary structures entirely analogous to those which become gills in fish because of these shared genes. Also, what about lungfish, which have entirely functional genes for both breathing air and water? And did you forget that most amphibians that breathe air as adults and walk on land start out aquatic, like the tadpoles of frogs? Are you going to deny that tadpoles have genes necessary for an aquatic lifestyle?

They are not identical, they are only similar. All bird beaks are similar, but none are identical.

-_- I wasn't calling Christians "flat Earthers". I was suggesting that the fact that creationists often imply that evolution supporters have some sort of emotional attachment was similar to how flat Earthers talk about people having an emotional attachment to the idea that the Earth is a sphere.

Thanks for the clarification.

Which, by the way, you did imply that evolution supporters such as myself would have some sort of emotional turmoil if evolution was disproven, to enough of an extent that we would willfully ignore evidence against the theory.

IMO evolutionists ignore the laws of genetics and "after their kind" which is proved thousands of times every day.

Land animals do not have genes for aquatic characteristics.

 

[omega2xx]

Oh dear, I think that that paper was slightly above your pay grade although to be fair I didn't expect you to actually read or understand it, let alone address it.

I understood it and I addressed it.

To think the ability to identify what genes do supports natural selection show you don't understand what you posted.

 

[omega2xx]

We've been over this many times. Your refusal to accept evidence leads to others refusing to post more and more evidence. Your continuous dishonesty is a very poor reflection of yourself. Any lurkers by now will be well aware that you have no interest in evidence and appear not to understand genetics or evolution.

Lurker will be more aware that you can't provide any scientific evidence for natural selection.

To think the ability to identify what a gene does supports natural selection is laughable. It also shows you do not understand what constitutes verifiable evidence.

 

[Jimmy D]

Identifying genes does not prove natural selection. In any case the species did not change.

LOL, they weren't trying to "prove" natural selection. Natural selection is a known and understood mechanism... only the most ignorant person would deny that. In fact, not even the idiots over at creationist websites deny it...

"The creationist view of natural selection is supported biblically and scientifically. Natural selection is a God-ordained process that allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds."

Even the arch-idiot Ken Ham accepts it....

Natural selection removes or reorganizes genetic information, allowing different traits, such as different beak sizes (e.g., the finches of the Galapagos), to show up. Those organisms best suited to their environment survive while the others die off or don’t reproduce as well. Of course, those that thrive pass along their unique combination of genes to the next generation, skewing the gene pool in their favor. Eventually this can allow new species (such as a new species of finch) to arise.


As Sarah said, in the paper I cited they applied evidence from natural selection in their tests which then yielded much better results "by orders of magnitude".

It's not something you can argue against because the data is right there in the paper.

Your inane response shows that you are out of your depth son. I suggest you give it up, you're not doing yourself or your religion any favours.

 

[Jimmy D]

DNA carries genetic instruction, but a mutation only affects the gene, not the DNA

 

[pitabread]

You also don't understand even basic genetics.

DNA carries genetic instruction, but a mutation only affects the gene, not the DNA

So was this intentional irony, or....?

 

[PsychoSarah]

DNA carries genetic instruction, but a mutation only affects the gene, not the DNA

I want to know who told you that DNA carries genes like I would carry an apple rather than genes literally being a part of the DNA, so that I may slap them.

But for your sake, here's what a gene is: "A gene is a sequence of DNA or RNA which codes for a molecule that has a function." The "or RNA" applies to the few viruses that use RNA as their genetic material instead of DNA. Regardless, genes are a part of the DNA sequence directly, not something merely chemically attached to it.

They are not identical, they are only similar. All bird beaks are similar, but none are identical.

HOX genes are the most highly conserved genes among all animals. Humans have some HOX genes which are entirely identical to those in fruit flies, the organism used to find these genes to begin with. Heck, by virtue of DNA having only 4 different bases, equal sized genomes of hypothetical organisms entirely unrelated to each other will have their bases match up 25% of the time just by chance.

I sincerely hope that you do not think EVERY gene has to be different between individuals for them to have different physical traits. Heck, technically, genes could be entirely identical between individuals and they can still end up with minor differences, which is why identical twins often grow up to not look entirely the same, despite having identical genomes. After all, the environment plays a role.

Thanks for the clarification.

No harm done, misunderstandings happen.

IMO evolutionists ignore the laws of genetics and "after their kind" which is proved thousands of times every day.

If you are going to use the term "kind", please define it, because there is no standard definition of what "kind" actually means. Some people use it to mean species, others genus, etc. However, evolution doesn't claim that a chicken can hatch from a lizard egg or other such nonsense. Rather, that minor differences in populations created by mutation can change in frequency within that population, and over time this process can lead to major changes over many generations.

Land animals do not have genes for aquatic characteristics.

Then how does a frog start out as a tadpole? Also, I would think that the fins of whales would count as aquatic characteristics.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Identifying genes does not prove natural selection. In any case the species did not change.

-_- if a species of moth comes in two colors, yellow and purple, and the yellow moths get eaten by predators 3 times more frequently than the purple moths, do you deny that even if the population started out with equal numbers of the moth colors that over the course of generations the purple moths would become more common? Because if the process of natural selection applies, the purple moths should become more common.

Species is a label that we came up with, and it hardly represents nature perfectly. Speciation is a continuous process, so it is not uncommon to observe populations that are partially through the process of diverging into different species. You aren't going to be able to say "at generation 98 these two groups were the same species, and at generation 99 they became different species", the lines are too gray for that. Well, with animals, anyways. The definition of species for bacteria is different than it is for animals (it wouldn't exactly make sense to apply a categorization that is highly influenced by the capacity for members of a population to sexually reproduce with each other to organisms that primarily reproduce asexually). For them, it is based on the percentage of genetic similarity, so you could more easily draw a line. -_- but creationists like to treat the bacteria based evolution experiments as if they don't count because "they are still bacteria", which is like saying "a chicken population giving rise to a dog population over the course of many generations doesn't count because they are still animals".

 

[pitabread]

nevermind

 

[omega2xx]

-_- if a species of moth comes in two colors, yellow and purple, and the yellow moths get eaten by predators 3 times more frequently than the purple moths, do you deny that even if the population started out with equal numbers of the moth colors that over the course of generations the purple moths would become more common? Because if the process of natural selection applies, the purple moths should become more common.

Moths do come in different colors, and not because of natural selection.

Species is a label that we came up with, and it hardly represents nature perfectly. Speciation is a continuous process, so it is not uncommon to observe populations that are partially through the process of diverging into different species. You aren't going to be able to say "at generation 98 these two groups were the same species, and at generation 99 they became different species", the lines are too gray for that. Well, with animals, anyways. The definition of species for bacteria is different than it is for animals (it wouldn't exactly make sense to apply a categorization that is highly influenced by the capacity for members of a population to sexually reproduce with each other to organisms that primarily reproduce asexually). For them, it is based on the percentage of genetic similarity, so you could more easily draw a line. -_- but creationists like to treat the bacteria based evolution experiments as if they don't count because "they are still bacteria", which is like saying "a chicken population giving rise to a dog population over the course of many generations doesn't count because they are still animals".

Species represents nature exactly. Speciation is not continuous and it does not result in a change of species.

 

[omega2xx]

I want to know who told you that DNA carries genes like I would carry an apple rather than genes literally being a part of the DNA, so that I may slap them.

Wikepedia

But for your sake, here's what a gene is: "A gene is a sequence of DNA or RNA which codes for a molecule that has a function." The "or RNA" applies to the few viruses that use RNA as their genetic material instead of DNA. Regardless, genes are a part of the DNA sequence directly, not something merely chemically attached to it.

Genes carry the codes for characteristics and the kid can only receive a characteristic from a gene in the gene pool of its parents. If neither parent doe snot have the gene for bone, they can not have a kid with bones. It is as simple as that.

HOX genes are the most highly conserved genes among all animals. Humans have some HOX genes which are entirely identical to those in fruit flies, the organism used to find these genes to begin with. Heck, by virtue of DNA having only 4 different bases, equal sized genomes of hypothetical organisms entirely unrelated to each other will have their bases match up 25% of the time just by chance.

Tell me who told you the hox gene in humans and fruit flies is the same so I can slap them silly.

I sincerely hope that you do not think EVERY gene has to be different between individuals for them to have different physical traits. Heck, technically, genes could be entirely identical between individuals and they can still end up with minor differences, which is why identical twins often grow up to not look entirely the same, despite having identical genomes. After all, the environment plays a role.

All genes are different. That is why some have green eyes, blue eyes, etc.

Environment may play a role i the survival of a species, but it does not have the ability to change a species.

If you are going to use the term "kind", please define it, because there is no standard definition of what "kind" actually means. Some people use it to mean species, others genus, etc.

Kind and species are the same term.

However, evolution doesn't claim that a chicken can hatch from a lizard egg or other such nonsense. Rather, that minor differences in populations created by mutation can change in frequency within that population, and over time this process can lead to major changes over many generations.[/QUOTE]

Pure evo bolony. Mutations never change the species. They only altar the characteristic of the gene it affected. When the gene for skin pigment is affected by a mutation, the kid remains homo sapian and its kids may or masy not be albino.


Then how does a frog start out as a tadpole? Also, I would think that the fins of whales would count as aquatic characteristics.[/QUOTE]

I want to know who told you that DNA carries genes like I would carry an apple rather than genes literally being a part of the DNA, so that I may slap them.

But for your sake, here's what a gene is: "A gene is a sequence of DNA or RNA which codes for a molecule that has a function." The "or RNA" applies to the few viruses that use RNA as their genetic material instead of DNA. Regardless, genes are a part of the DNA sequence directly, not something merely chemically attached to it.




HOX genes are the most highly conserved genes among all animals. Humans have some HOX genes which are entirely identical to those in fruit flies, the organism used to find these genes to begin with. Heck, by virtue of DNA having only 4 different bases, equal sized genomes of hypothetical organisms entirely unrelated to each other will have their bases match up 25% of the time just by chance.

I sincerely hope that you do not think EVERY gene has to be different between individuals for them to have different physical traits. Heck, technically, genes could be entirely identical between individuals and they can still end up with minor differences, which is why identical twins often grow up to not look entirely the same, despite having identical genomes. After all, the environment plays a role.




No harm done, misunderstandings happen.



If you are going to use the term "kind", please define it, because there is no standard definition of what "kind" actually means. Some people use it to mean species, others genus, etc. However, evolution doesn't claim that a chicken can hatch from a lizard egg or other such nonsense. Rather, that minor differences in populations created by mutation can change in frequency within that population, and over time this process can lead to major changes over many generations.


Then how does a frog start out as a tadpole? Also, I would think that the fins of whales would count as aquatic characteristics.

 

[omega2xx]

LOL, they weren't trying to "prove" natural selection. Natural selection is a known and understood mechanism... only the most ignorant person would deny that. In fact, not even the idiots over at creationist websites deny it...

"The creationist view of natural selection is supported biblically and scientifically. Natural selection is a God-ordained process that allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds."

Even the arch-idiot Ken Ham accepts it....

Natural selection removes or reorganizes genetic information, allowing different traits, such as different beak sizes (e.g., the finches of the Galapagos), to show up. Those organisms best suited to their environment survive while the others die off or don’t reproduce as well. Of course, those that thrive pass along their unique combination of genes to the next generation, skewing the gene pool in their favor. Eventually this can allow new species (such as a new species of finch) to arise.

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2016/04/17/natural-selection-opposite-evolution/

The Bible does not support natural selection and you cant provide any scientific evidence to support it. To quote a Christian on some subject is not . The majority of Christians will not accept natural selection as proved.

As Sarah said, in the paper I cited they applied evidence from natural selection in their tests which then yielded much better results "by orders of magnitude".

It's not something you can argue against because the data is right there in the paper.

Your inane response shows that you are out of your depth son. I suggest you give it up, you're not doing yourself or your religion any favours.[/QUOTE]

 

[bhsmte]

LOL