Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[Jimmy D]

You say their is strong evidence for natural selection, so why did you explain it instead of posting the evidence for it?

You have refused to engage with any evidence that's been posted, I've got no reason to think you'll start now. Besides I've got no interest in convincing you of anything, I'm engaging with you to correct all the blatantly untrue statements you are making about science.

 

[Jimmy D]

When what someone says can't be disproved, they have to resort to insults.

I apologise if I have insulted you.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not only do you not understand genetics, you also don't understand mutations. Mutations NEVER change the species,and you can't give me one example of when it does. You have to put way off in evolution lala land where no one was around o witness it. You can't even verify one of the small changes you need to make your theology viable.

-_- here is a basic situation fairly common in speciation:
1. a portion of a population becomes isolated from the rest.
2. this population experiences genetic drift independently of the original population, and has mutations appear within it not seen in the descendants of the larger population from which this smaller population was originally derived.
3. These differences in mutation and genetic drift, if allowed to persist long enough, will eventually result in members of these two populations being unable to breed and produce fertile offspring.

So, you see, it isn't going to be just 1 mutation alone that results in these populations becoming different species from each other. Heck, even with bacteria, they start out too genetically similar to each other to reasonably become different species just because of 1 mutation, even though those species are distinguished by genetic similarity and one could mark down how much different at minimum the genome would need to become for a population to become a different species. I'm not even sure why you think speciation has to inevitably come down to 1 mutation; it's far more frequent that multiple mutations present are responsible for the inability for two different populations to be unable to interbreed. In no case will the current generation be unable to breed with the generation right before it. Speciation is a comparison of one generation with another much farther down the line, and is too gradual of a process for something that extreme to happen within 1 generation.

I will give you a law of genetics and you can show me where it is not true: The offspring can only receive characteristics in the gene pool of its parents.

Scientific laws have names, like Newton's third law of motion. If that statement fit the description of a scientific law, it'd have a name as well. Heck, I even copy and pasted your description of your "law of genetics" into Google, and nothing matches with it. At all. Plus, like I have mentioned before, mutation exists, therefore offspring can have traits their parents do not have. Usually there won't be an extreme difference, but it doesn't have to be an extreme difference with just 1 generation to build up over many generations.

IOW if neither parent has the gene for bones, they will never have a kid with bones. The first guess evolution made about the origin of life was a single celled blob of some kind.They originally said it was a simple cell, but when DNA was discovered, they had to walk that back.

-_- I don't know why you are bringing up abiogenesis in our discussion about genetics on a subforum that is meant for the debate between creationism and EVOLUTION. Evolution doesn't cover where the first life came from, so it's irrelevant to the debate.

That is a non-scientific, necessary assumption for which you have no evidence. You need to get out of evo lala land.

-_- You just assert that I have no evidence rather than asking for it. I won't provide what isn't requested.

I am not assuming anything , you are. I know hox genes have something to do with bone development.

-_- no one that knows what HOX genes are would describe them that way, especially considering that they aren't responsible for bone development in any direct sense (I'm not an imbecile, why would I say that invertebrates such as fruit flies share HOX genes with humans if said genes were directly related to bone growth? Fruit flies don't have bones). HOX genes are responsible for general tissue arrangement for a body plan with bilateral symmetry. You'd learn that just from reading the first sentence of the Wikipedia page, and within the first paragraph it clarifies that these genes only determine general placement, not specifics of development. Of course, if these genes are messed up, then body parts form in inappropriate locations, like antennae where the eyes are supposed to be.

If neither parent has a hox gene, they cannot have a kid with bones.

XD HOX genes organize the tissue, not determine how it specializes. Any organism that has bilateral symmetry that produces offspring without HOX genes is having a miscarriage, and organisms that don't have basic bilateral symmetry aren't vertebrates so wouldn't be producing bones anyways.

Hypothetically, if a human embryo managed to develop at all with no HOX genes, it'd be a jumbled mess of the various tissue types humans have, including bone tissue. Which makes for a horrifying image in my imagination for sure, but doesn't lack bones.

I have quit reading evo links. They never include any scientific evidence.

That does not help with your debate position at all. How can you be sure if people aren't presenting valid evidence if you don't even bother to check? Plus, if you aren't going to read links, then I'll just post the important content of the link in my post and post the link as a source. Which will just make my posts very, very long. But the question is, would you cease to read my posts if I did that?

Now you have a chance o prove me wrong by cutting and pasting the evidence provided in your link, but you won't do that will you?

I've copy and pasted before. It makes it very sad that you didn't even check the page, it has only a very concise paragraph for the explanation of HOX genes:
""General purpose" control genes are important elements in building complicated organisms like flies. Some "control" genes are common to many organisms (they are homologous — inherited from our common ancestor). For example, Hox genes help lay out the basic body forms of many animals, including humans, flies, and worms. They set up the head-to-tail organization. You can think of them as directing instructions as an embryo develops: "Put the head here! Legs go over there!" They are general purpose in the sense that they are similar in many organisms; it doesn't matter if it's a mouse's head or a fly's head that is being built, the same gene directs the process. Small changes in such powerful regulatory genes, or changes in the genes turned on by them, could represent a major source of evolutionary change." Hox genes
There, every word on that page that isn't sources or dates of editing, etc. Would it really have killed you to click the link for yourself?

That simply isn't true. another claim for which you have no evidence. If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be transitional and you do not even have one.

I'll post one in every response from now on, but you'll have to give me the most minimal of respect and be willing to click links for pictures. It's even from a theistic evolution website.
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/hominids2_big.jpg

The usual evo mumbo jumbo when they have no verifiable evidence to support their non-scientific guesses.

-_- I tried to explain a common problem in animal taxonomy as simply as I could, it is not my fault all you get out of it is "mumbo jumbo". I'll give a specific example with plants. I happen to grow tropical pitcher plants, which all belong to the genus Nepenthes. Nearly every member of this genus can produce fertile offspring with every other species in the genus. However, hybrids of 4 or more different species with no back crossing begin to experience fertility problems, with hybrids of 6 different species being completely infertile.

You finally got something right an used a basic law of genetics to do it. Thanks.

All I did was reword what what you intended to say so that it would be communicated better, and to be sure I was interpreting you correctly. You still haven't actually named any scientific laws in your posts. What is the name of the "genetic law" you keep bringing up?

You are still in evo lala land. You have no evidence to support that necessary guess.

Would you read it if I posted links? There's too much for me to reasonably copy and paste.

I gave you one basic law. Prove i wrong an I will give you another.

-_- you haven't named a single law of anything. Scientific laws have names, such as Newton's third law of motion. I want the name of the law you keep referring to, to verify if it actually exists or not. Heck, even better, give me a source that has it, because I actually do click links.

 

[omega2xx]

-_- here is a basic situation fairly common in speciation:
1. a portion of a population becomes isolated from the rest.
2. this population experiences genetic drift independently of the original population, and has mutations appear within it not seen in the descendants of the larger population from which this smaller population was originally derived.
3. These differences in mutation and genetic drift, if allowed to persist long enough, will eventually result in members of these two populations being unable to breed and produce fertile offspring.

So, you see, it isn't going to be just 1 mutation alone that results in these populations becoming different species from each other. Heck, even with bacteria, they start out too genetically similar to each other to reasonably become different species just because of 1 mutation, even though those species are distinguished by genetic similarity and one could mark down how much different at minimum the genome would need to become for a population to become a different species. I'm not even sure why you think speciation has to inevitably come down to 1 mutation; it's far more frequent that multiple mutations present are responsible for the inability for two different populations to be unable to interbreed. In no case will the current generation be unable to breed with the generation right before it. Speciation is a comparison of one generation with another much farther down the line, and is too gradual of a process for something that extreme to happen within 1 generation.



Scientific laws have names, like Newton's third law of motion. If that statement fit the description of a scientific law, it'd have a name as well. Heck, I even copy and pasted your description of your "law of genetics" into Google, and nothing matches with it. At all. Plus, like I have mentioned before, mutation exists, therefore offspring can have traits their parents do not have. Usually there won't be an extreme difference, but it doesn't have to be an extreme difference with just 1 generation to build up over many generations.


-_- I don't know why you are bringing up abiogenesis in our discussion about genetics on a subforum that is meant for the debate between creationism and EVOLUTION. Evolution doesn't cover where the first life came from, so it's irrelevant to the debate.



-_- You just assert that I have no evidence rather than asking for it. I won't provide what isn't requested.


-_- no one that knows what HOX genes are would describe them that way, especially considering that they aren't responsible for bone development in any direct sense (I'm not an imbecile, why would I say that invertebrates such as fruit flies share HOX genes with humans if said genes were directly related to bone growth? Fruit flies don't have bones). HOX genes are responsible for general tissue arrangement for a body plan with bilateral symmetry. You'd learn that just from reading the first sentence of the Wikipedia page, and within the first paragraph it clarifies that these genes only determine general placement, not specifics of development. Of course, if these genes are messed up, then body parts form in inappropriate locations, like antennae where the eyes are supposed to be.



XD HOX genes organize the tissue, not determine how it specializes. Any organism that has bilateral symmetry that produces offspring without HOX genes is having a miscarriage, and organisms that don't have basic bilateral symmetry aren't vertebrates so wouldn't be producing bones anyways.

Hypothetically, if a human embryo managed to develop at all with no HOX genes, it'd be a jumbled mess of the various tissue types humans have, including bone tissue. Which makes for a horrifying image in my imagination for sure, but doesn't lack bones.


That does not help with your debate position at all. How can you be sure if people aren't presenting valid evidence if you don't even bother to check? Plus, if you aren't going to read links, then I'll just post the important content of the link in my post and post the link as a source. Which will just make my posts very, very long. But the question is, would you cease to read my posts if I did that?


I've copy and pasted before. It makes it very sad that you didn't even check the page, it has only a very concise paragraph for the explanation of HOX genes:
""General purpose" control genes are important elements in building complicated organisms like flies. Some "control" genes are common to many organisms (they are homologous — inherited from our common ancestor). For example, Hox genes help lay out the basic body forms of many animals, including humans, flies, and worms. They set up the head-to-tail organization. You can think of them as directing instructions as an embryo develops: "Put the head here! Legs go over there!" They are general purpose in the sense that they are similar in many organisms; it doesn't matter if it's a mouse's head or a fly's head that is being built, the same gene directs the process. Small changes in such powerful regulatory genes, or changes in the genes turned on by them, could represent a major source of evolutionary change." Hox genes
There, every word on that page that isn't sources or dates of editing, etc. Would it really have killed you to click the link for yourself?





I'll post one in every response from now on, but you'll have to give me the most minimal of respect and be willing to click links for pictures. It's even from a theistic evolution website.
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/hominids2_big.jpg



-_- I tried to explain a common problem in animal taxonomy as simply as I could, it is not my fault all you get out of it is "mumbo jumbo". I'll give a specific example with plants. I happen to grow tropical pitcher plants, which all belong to the genus Nepenthes. Nearly every member of this genus can produce fertile offspring with every other species in the genus. However, hybrids of 4 or more different species with no back crossing begin to experience fertility problems, with hybrids of 6 different species being completely infertile.




All I did was reword what what you intended to say so that it would be communicated better, and to be sure I was interpreting you correctly. You still haven't actually named any scientific laws in your posts. What is the name of the "genetic law" you keep bringing up?




Would you read it if I posted links? There's too much for me to reasonably copy and paste.



-_- you haven't named a single law of anything. Scientific laws have names, such as Newton's third law of motion. I want the name of the law you keep referring to, to verify if it actually exists or not. Heck, even better, give me a source that has it, because I actually do click links.

Genetic drift, like natural selection is another unprovable but necessary invention of the evolution evangelist to give the faithful their faith is not in vain.

When you provide the evidence for natural selection and or genetic drift, get back to me. Unless you do that, this is a waste of my time.

 

[omega2xx]

I apologise if I have insulted you.

Accepted, thanks.

 

[omega2xx]

You have refused to engage with any evidence that's been posted, I've got no reason to think you'll start now. Besides I've got no interest in convincing you of anything, I'm engaging with you to correct all the blatantly untrue statements you are making about science.

Be specific. Consider that just because you think something is true, that does not make it true.

I have been asking for the proof of natural selection being a mechanism for a change o species. Would you like to be the first to offer the evidence for what you THINK is true?

 

[omega2xx]

LOL, no one said that "ERV is a mechanism for a change of species", you really haven't got a clue what you're talking about have you?

And what do you mean "even if ERV is true"?



I was referring to your behaviour actually.



LOL



Of course I'm concerned, if you aren't aware of the underlying political agendas of creationism you have even less idea of what your discussing than I first thought.



Grow up, it's there in black and white. I merely responded to something you posted.



I suggest you re-read what you wrote.



They specifically state that any evidence that disagrees with their YEC reading of the bible should be automatically dismissed, is that how science should be done?



I'd suggest that you have already checked it, and discovered I'm right. Is it really so painful to admit that you were in error?



You obviously don't know what an ERV is or how it demonstrates common descent, you've overplayed your hand with this sentence and your bluffing is exposed for all to see.



I was merely offering a definition of natural selection.



Citation required.



Because other than an ignorance of science there is no other reason to doubt that common descent is a fact.

I dont respond to ignorant tirades. If you can prove common descent, do so or admit you can't. Be sure to use some real science, not the necessary assumptions of evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

Accepted, thanks.

Cheers, it's too easy to get carried away during these discussions.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Genetic drift, like natural selection is another unprovable but necessary invention of the evolution evangelist to give the faithful their faith is not in vain.

-_- Genetic drift is extremely easy to observe, and I don't think you understand what it is, otherwise you wouldn't be asserting that it doesn't happen. It's literally changes in gene variation that happen at random. For example, let's say that a town starts out with a population with equal numbers of people with blue eyes and brown eyes. If, at random, people with blue eyes had children less frequently than the people with brown eyes, then the allele frequency of the blue eye variant of the genes related to eye color would decrease. That's what genetic drift is, when the frequency of certain trait variations changes purely by chance.

Also, I can't help but notice you didn't reply to the rest of my post, please do. Especially the part asking what "law of genetics" you keep referring to. What is the name of that "law"?

When you provide the evidence for natural selection and or genetic drift, get back to me. Unless you do that, this is a waste of my time.

Not sure how you think antibiotic resistant bacteria strains become prominent without natural selection playing a role. Especially considering that the antibiotic resistant strains are at a disadvantage against non-resistant strains in environments in which antibiotics are absent.

Also, I await to see if you change your mind about genetic drift after reading my explanation of what it is.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I dont respond to ignorant tirades. If you can prove common descent, do so or admit you can't. Be sure to use some real science, not the necessary assumptions of evolution.

Ubiquitious genes.

Genetic similarity of phylogenetically close organisms compared to phylogenetically disparate organisms.

The fossil record.

Atavisms

The fact that creationists cannot construct an argument against all this evidence (and more) of common descent, and just try to hand-wave it away.

 

[pitabread]

I dont respond to ignorant tirades.

Considering your only reason for being here is to argue, why not?

 

[omega2xx]

Considering your only reason for being here is to argue, why not?

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

 

[omega2xx]

Ubiquitious genes.

The usual, non-scientific rhetoric. How do ubiquitious genes support evolution.

Genetic similarity of phylogenetically close organisms compared to phylogenetically disparate organisms.

More non-scientific rhetoric. Do you really not understand that evidence require the HOW?

The fossil record.

To use a theology with no intermediates connecting different species is laughable. Since your best expert, Gould, invented non-scientific "punctuated equilibra," which is even more absurd than gradualism, the fossil record is useless in trying to support evolution.

Atavisms

The fact that creationists cannot construct an argument against all this evidence (and more) of common descent, and just try to hand-wave it away.

We don't need to construct anything. All we need to do is understand real science.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

The usual, non-scientific rhetoric. How do ubiquitious genes support evolution.

Your ignorance of ubiquitous genes does not rule them out as a support for evolution

More non-scientific rhetoric. Do you really not understand that evidence require the HOW?

I understand this fully. However, your ignorance of the background behind the evidence is your problem, not mine. If you don't understand the evidences for evolution, then all this does is rule you out as a competent participant for a discussion on evolution; it doesn't in any way argue against evolution.

To use a theology with no intermediates connecting different species is laughable. Since your best expert, Gould, invented non-scientific "punctuated equilibra," which is even more absurd than gradualism, the fossil record is useless in trying to support evolution.

We don't need to construct anything. All we need to do is understand real science.

You calling something absurd does not make it absurd. The fossil evidence has been examined and re-examined, and used to create evolutionary trees which have been confirmed by modern genetic and molecular evidence. Hence, it has been demonstrated that even the less detailed (than today) fossil record was ample to produce an accurate evolutionary tree.

 

[omega2xx]

-_- Genetic drift is extremely easy to observe, and I don't think you understand what it is, otherwise you wouldn't be asserting that it doesn't happen. It's literally changes in gene variation that happen at random. For example, let's say that a town starts out with a population with equal numbers of people with blue eyes and brown eyes. If, at random, people with blue eyes had children less frequently than the people with brown eyes, then the allele frequency of the blue eye variant of the genes related to eye color would decrease. That's what genetic drift is, when the frequency of certain trait variations changes purely by chance.

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

Also, I can't help but notice you didn't reply to the rest of my post, please do. Especially the part asking what "law of genetics" you keep referring to. What is the name of that "law"?

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

Not sure how you think antibiotic resistant bacteria strains become prominent without natural selection playing a role. Especially considering that the antibiotic resistant strains are at a disadvantage against non-resistant strains in environments in which antibiotics are absent.

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.

Also, I await to see if you change your mind about genetic drift after reading my explanation of what it is.

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

 

[Ophiolite]

Cheers, it's too easy to get carried away during these discussions.

And sometimes one wishes that ones "opponent" would get carried very far away.

 

[Ophiolite]

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

That point is central to PsychoSarah's argument. Would you revisit the passage and think about it again please.

It is the case, I understand, that the gene for brown eyes is dominant and that for blue eyes is recessive. If those parents with brown eyes decide, by chance, to have more children than those with blue eyes, then the prevalence of brown eyes and the brown eye allele will increase in the population. If you dispute this then on what basis do you dispute it. If you do not dispute it then please retract your accusation of boloney*.

*I note, with interest, the mutation from baloney to boloney, yet the meaning is still clear. In the same way mutations of genes often have little impact on the functioning of the gene, in some instances even improving it. As it is with words, so it is with genes.

 

[omega2xx]

Your ignorance of ubiquitous genes does not rule them out as a support for evolution

And your ignorance of genetics does not mean you saying they do supports evolution.

I understand this fully. However, your ignorance of the background behind the evidence is your problem, not mine. If you don't understand the evidences for evolution, then all this does is rule you out as a competent participant for a discussion on evolution; it doesn't in any way argue against evolution.

Thanks for exposing your ignorance of what constitutes evidence. So far all you have done is make dogmatic statements with no supporting evidence.

You calling something absurd does not make it absurd. The fossil evidence has been examined and re-examined, and used to create evolutionary trees which have been confirmed by modern genetic and molecular evidence. Hence, it has been demonstrated that even the less detailed (than today) fossil record was ample to produce an accurate evolutionary tree.

Punctuated equilibra destroyed gradualism, a back of evolution for over 100 years.

Her is a statement by Ernst Mayr, someone many consider the leading voice for evolution:

Wherever we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelming frequent...The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates: p 189 of his book, What Evolution is.

Gould said basically the same thing.

Mayr also said the fossil record is "woefully inadequate."

If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils wold be intermediates, and you have none.

 

[omega2xx]

That point is central to PsychoSarah's argument. Would you revisit the passage and think about it again please.

It is the case, I understand, that the gene for brown eyes is dominant and that for blue eyes is recessive. If those parents with brown eyes decide, by chance, to have more children than those with blue eyes, then the prevalence of brown eyes and the brown eye allele will increase in the population. If you dispute this then on what basis do you dispute it. If you do not dispute it then please retract your accusation of boloney*.

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 note, with interest, the mutation from baloney to boloney, yet the meaning is still clear. In the same way mutations of genes often have little impact on the functioning of the gene, in some instances even improving it. As it is with words, so it is with genes.

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.

 

[Jimmy D]

And your ignorance of genetics does not mean you saying they do supports evolution.



Thanks for exposing your ignorance of what constitutes evidence. So far all you have done is make dogmatic statements with no supporting evidence.



Punctuated equilibra destroyed gradualism, a back of evolution for over 100 years.

Her is a statement by Ernst Mayr, someone many consider the leading voice for evolution:

Wherever we look at the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelming frequent...The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates: p 189 of his book, What Evolution is.

Gould said basically the same thing.

Mayr also said the fossil record is "woefully inadequate."

If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils wold be intermediates, and you have none.

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.