Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[Jimmy D]

Mutations have a great impact on the gene. Most of the tgie4m it is not beneficial, but even the good ones will never cause the offspring to evolve into a different species as it parents. This is true in plants, animals and humans.

Did anyone say that mutations could cause an organism to become a different species to it's parents? I'm not surprised that you don't accept evolution if this is your understanding of it.

 

[Ophiolite]

I will not revisit it because it is not true. What you have just posted is the way genes work. The dominant gene will always determine the characteristic unless their is a mutation that altars the characteristic.

The brown eyed parents will always have brown eyed kids and the blue eyed parents will always have blue eyed kids.

If one parent has blue eyes and the other has brown eyes, their children will have brown eyes because, as you say, brown is dominant and the gene for eyes is recessive.

I will change "bolony" to incorrect.

I would respectfully ask you to revisit it, or at least tell me what you believe to be incorrect with what I said. It does nothing to advance the discussion if you simply make assertions without any accompanying argument. Let me expand my point to make it clearer. Once you have considered this please tell me specifically what is incorrect about what I have said. Do not simply repeat that it is incorrect.

Let's consider a hypothetical population composed as follows:

10 couples with blue eyes
10 couples with brown eyes (and no recessive blue eyed genes)

The population has a phenotype of 50% blue eyes, 50% brown eyes.
The population has a genotype of 50% blue eye allele, 50 brown eye allele.

Now all the blue eyed couples decide to start a family. Each couple have two children who, naturally, also have blue eyes.

Only five of the brown eyed couples decide to have children. Each couple has two children who, naturally, have brown eyes.

The population is now composed of the following:

10 couples and twenty children with blue eyes; 10 couples and ten children with brown eyes.

The population phenotype is now 57% blue eyes, 43% brown eyes.
The population genotype is no 57% blue eye allele, 43% brown eye allele.

That is a simple, detailed eample of what PsychoSarah was describing. What is it that you believe is incorrect about it?

 

[bhsmte]

Don't label what I do, you have no way of knowing.

Every post you make is a clue to your thought process. And, we have a lot of clues.

 

[pitabread]

Don't label what I do, you have no way of knowing.

Sure I do. Your responses are a dead give away.

You're either here to argue or you're here to troll (arguably same difference). So again, why do you care how people respond as long as they respond?

So long as you're getting attention, isn't that enough?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Pure evo bolony. Eye color is not random. Eye color is determined by which gene for eye color is dominant.

You have misunderstood me on this. I was not saying that eye color is random. I will try to explain again. Genetic drift is when the FREQUENCY of variations in genes changes at random. If, in a population with equal numbers of blue eyed and brown eyed people, the blue eyed people choose to have fewer children, the frequency of the allele for blue eyes will drop in comparison to the frequency of the allele for brown eyes. This single generation decision can set off a trend that results in the blue eye allele becoming far rarer than it originally was, even though this trait posed no actual survival or reproduction disadvantages. Again, not necessarily the physical trait (although, I purposely used the example of blue eyed people having less kids to make it so that in that example, the expressed trait frequency would also inevitably decrease, since that allele is recessive to the brown eye allele and it would be unlikely that every brown eyed person was a carrier of a blue eye allele).

An allele is a specific variant of a gene, fyi. Do you not agree that if people with this genetic mutation were to decide to have fewer children that it would become rarer?

The name is not important. Is what I posted true or not? If not, explain why.

The name is absolutely important, because if I don't have the name of the scientific law you keep referring to, how can I ever entirely understand your posts? I am open to the possibility that you know about a scientific law that I don't, but I need your cooperation to verify that.

I am equally open to the possibility that you are pulling this "law of genetics" straight out of your butt, so you better be willing to demonstrate that you aren't. After all, if it isn't a fabrication, it should be really easy for you to give the name. Being able to name Newton's third law of motion is a lot easier than memorizing a short summary of it and understanding what it means.

If some of the bacteria did not have some immunity to an antibiotic, they would have all been killed when they came into contact with the antibiotic. They did not develop their resistance, some must have already had it.

Except in experimental populations from which every individual arose from a single cell, antibiotic resistance can arise via mutation alone. That's how evolution experiments with bacteria work, the experimental population is all derived from a single individual. So, without mutation, none of the bacteria should ever have a resistance to a given antibiotic, but that is not what we observe.

Incorrect statements will not cause me to changer my mind. Did you change your mind when it was properly explained to you?

You properly explained what? Your personal views without anything to back them up? This entire time, all you have done is make claims without any evidence whatsoever, and then make it harder for me to back up my claims with sources by refusing to read anything I link to you. Heck, when I made a simple request for you to name the "law of genetics" you keep referring to, rather than fulfill that request, you got all defensive and demanded I prove that it's wrong instead. But, since I'd do my own research on it, there would be a good chance that I'd end up agreeing with you if it was a real scientific law and you'd win the debate. Why are you making this so hard on both of us?

Plus, when I corrected you about what HOX genes are and what they do, what did you do? Entirely ignore that part of my post, giving no response to it.

 

[omega2xx]

You have misunderstood me on this. I was not saying that eye color is random. I will try to explain again. Genetic drift is when the FREQUENCY of variations in genes changes at random. If, in a population with equal numbers of blue eyed and brown eyed people, the blue eyed people choose to have fewer children, the frequency of the allele for blue eyes will drop in comparison to the frequency of the allele for brown eyes. This single generation decision can set off a trend that results in the blue eye allele becoming far rarer than it originally was, even though this trait posed no actual survival or reproduction disadvantages. Again, not necessarily the physical trait (although, I purposely used the example of blue eyed people having less kids to make it so that in that example, the expressed trait frequency would also inevitably decrease, since that allele is recessive to the brown eye allele and it would be unlikely that every brown eyed person was a carrier of a blue eye allele).

An allele is a specific variant of a gene, fyi. Do you not agree that if people with this genetic mutation were to decide to have fewer children that it would become rarer?

Variation in genes do not occur, therefore genetic drift is a non-scientific invention of evolution to give the faithful hope they have not believe in vain.

Even if what you say is true, it would not result in a change of species.

The name is absolutely important, because if I don't have the name of the scientific law you keep referring to, how can I ever entirely understand your posts? I am open to the possibility that you know about a scientific law that I don't, but I need your cooperation to verify that.

I am equally open to the possibility that you are pulling this "law of genetics" straight out of your butt, so you better be willing to demonstrate that you aren't. After all, if it isn't a fabrication, it should be really easy for you to give the name. Being able to name Newton's third law of motion is a lot easier than memorizing a short summary of it and understanding what it means.



Except in experimental populations from which every individual arose from a single cell, antibiotic resistance can arise via mutation alone. That's how evolution experiments with bacteria work, the experimental population is all derived from a single individual. So, without mutation, none of the bacteria should ever have a resistance to a given antibiotic, but that is not what we observe.




You properly explained what? Your personal views without anything to back them up? This entire time, all you have done is make claims without any evidence whatsoever, and then make it harder for me to back up my claims with sources by refusing to read anything I link to you. Heck, when I made a simple request for you to name the "law of genetics" you keep referring to, rather than fulfill that request, you got all defensive and demanded I prove that it's wrong instead. But, since I'd do my own research on it, there would be a good chance that I'd end up agreeing with you if it was a real scientific law and you'd win the debate. Why are you making this so hard on both of us?

Just tell me if that statement was true of not. It is not hard for me.

Plus, when I corrected you about what HOX genes are and what they do, what did you do? Entirely ignore that part of my post, giving no response to it.

What the hox gene does is irrelevant. Not all species has a hox gene and they cannot have a kid with bones. making common descent impossible.

 

[omega2xx]

Sure I do. Your responses are a dead give away.

You're either here to argue or you're here to troll (arguably same difference). So again, why do you care how people respond as long as they respond?

So long as you're getting attention, isn't that enough?

You are not qualified to know why I am here and it seems you are the one trolling, looking for attention.

The next time you are off subject don't expect a response.

 

[omega2xx]

Every post you make is a clue to your thought process. And, we have a lot of clues.

I won't deny that but it is not evidence for why I am here and it certainly isn't for getting attention. I don't know why he would say such a silly thing.

 

[omega2xx]

I would respectfully ask you to revisit it, or at least tell me what you believe to be incorrect with what I said. It does nothing to advance the discussion if you simply make assertions without any accompanying argument. Let me expand my point to make it clearer. Once you have considered this please tell me specifically what is incorrect about what I have said. Do not simply repeat that it is incorrect.

Let's consider a hypothetical population composed as follows:

10 couples with blue eyes
10 couples with brown eyes (and no recessive blue eyed genes)

The population has a phenotype of 50% blue eyes, 50% brown eyes.
The population has a genotype of 50% blue eye allele, 50 brown eye allele.

Now all the blue eyed couples decide to start a family. Each couple have two children who, naturally, also have blue eyes.

Only five of the brown eyed couples decide to have children. Each couple has two children who, naturally, have brown eyes.

The population is now composed of the following:

10 couples and twenty children with blue eyes; 10 couples and ten children with brown eyes.

The population phenotype is now 57% blue eyes, 43% brown eyes.
The population genotype is no 57% blue eye allele, 43% brown eye allele.

That is a simple, detailed eample of what PsychoSarah was describing. What is it that you believe is incorrect about it?

There is nothing wrong with that senerio, but she also said genes for eye color are random and thy are not. Eye color is attributed to a specific gene.

This started out discussing "genetic drift." Eye color or any other characteristic is not the result of genetic drift. They are the result of a specific dominant gene.

In any case, genetic drift, even if true, can't be a mechanism for a change of species.

 

[omega2xx]

Did anyone say that mutations could cause an organism to become a different species to it's parents? I'm not surprised that you don't accept evolution if this is your understanding of it.

Many have said that mutations making many small changes over long periods of time will result in a new species. That is the most common comment I get in this type of discussion.

I am surprised that so many intelligent people accept evolution. I guess when you only get to see one side of the coin you think it has heads on both sides.

Children are not really educated when they are only taught one possibility. That is called indoctrination, which is usually dangerous for a society.

 

[omega2xx]

You've been corrected on this particular quote mine before, it's extremely dishonest to bring it up again. I suppose if you're not equipped to argue coherently against the scientific evidence it's easier to parrot the dishonest ramblings of creationist propagandists.

Creationism in a nutshell.

I haven't been corrected, only disagreed with. Ther is nothing wrong with what is called q

 

[omega2xx]

.

I haven't been corrected, only disagreed with. There is nothing wrong with what is called quote mining. People call it that when an expert in their field refutes something they have accepted by faith alone.

If you want to bring dishonesty into this discussion, start with whale evolution and explain, scientifically of course, why a land animal would eventually become a whale. Please include how it is genetically possible for a leg to become a fin and for as nose to become a blowhole.

Evolution in a nutshell.

 

[pitabread]

You are not qualified to know why I am here and it seems you are the one trolling, looking for attention.

Come now. You continue to bait people in such a transparent fashion that anyone would have to blind not to see you're just trying to start an argument. To what end, probably because it's fun for you. It's certainly not to change anyone's mind.

As for me, I'm here for boredom and arguments. Same as you I would wager.

The next time you are off subject don't expect a response.

If this were true you wouldn't have replied in the first place.

 

[bhsmte]

I won't deny that but it is not evidence for why I am here and it certainly isn't for getting attention. I don't know why he would say such a silly thing.

No interest on why you are here. It is interesting to watch you try to support your claims and react to evidence presented to you though.

 

[pitabread]

I won't deny that but it is not evidence for why I am here and it certainly isn't for getting attention.

Your continual bait posts suggests otherwise.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Uh, you botched your post a bit, fyi.

You know what? I am done with diplomacy, the "law of genetics" you keep trying to use as an authority is a lie. If it weren't, you would have provided a name for it by now, and my Google searches would have yielded results. If you aren't willing to demonstrate that it exists and make more of an effort to dodge the matter than simply provide a name, your claim entirely lacks credibility.

Plus, even if it did exist, your interpretation of it would likely be very off, since your claim of "offspring can only inherit traits present in the parent gene pool" is demonstrably incorrect in a variety of ways. The most damning examples being horizontal gene transfer in bacteria (in which bacteria can integrate genes into their genome that come from unrelated individuals through a variety of means), and genetic mutation, which demonstrably can result in traits being present in offspring that aren't present in the parents, such as having six fingers on each hand instead of five. I have no idea how you think the various breeds of dogs could come to be without mutation having an influence on physical traits, given that the majority of dog breeds have been produced within the past 200 years.

You have simply waved away my explanations of how mutations contribute to speciation while providing absolutely no sources or evidence for your position and refusing to read any of mine unless I spoon-feed it to you. If you have no intention of debating seriously, why are you here?

 

[omega2xx]

Uh, you botched your post a bit, fyi.

You know what? I am done with diplomacy, the "law of genetics" you keep trying to use as an authority is a lie. If it weren't, you would have provided a name for it by now, and my Google searches would have yielded results. If you aren't willing to demonstrate that it exists and make more of an effort to dodge the matter than simply provide a name, your claim entirely lacks credibility.

Plus, even if it did exist, your interpretation of it would likely be very off, since your claim of "offspring can only inherit traits present in the parent gene pool" is demonstrably incorrect in a variety of ways. The most damning examples being horizontal gene transfer in bacteria (in which bacteria can integrate genes into their genome that come from unrelated individuals through a variety of means), and genetic mutation, which demonstrably can result in traits being present in offspring that aren't present in the parents, such as having six fingers on each hand instead of five. I have no idea how you think the various breeds of dogs could come to be without mutation having an influence on physical traits, given that the majority of dog breeds have been produced within the past 200 years.

You have simply waved away my explanations of how mutations contribute to speciation while providing absolutely no sources or evidence for your position and refusing to read any of mine unless I spoon-feed it to you. If you have no intention of debating seriously, why are you here?

When you offers some evidence instead of ranting, we can continue.

 

[omega2xx]

Your continual bait posts suggests otherwise.

Why is asking for evidence bating?

 

[omega2xx]

No interest on why you are here. It is interesting to watch you try to support your claims and react to evidence presented to you though.

When you can prove my claims wrong, get back to me.

 

[Jimmy D]

When you can prove my claims wrong, get back to me.

What claims? Have you made any claims? All I can see is a refusal to accept the Theory of Evolution... based on a lack of understanding of the subject.