Win a debate against evolution every time.

[samaus12345]

Hay Mark is that 9x% is that in only coding regions which is less than 2%?

Papias. So knowing that they assign it off into the UNOBSERVED past you still place faith in the atheists timeline origin as opposed to Gods?

Based on the MYTH that gene duplication gives rise to new FUNCTIONAL proteins while the ancestral copy retains ancestral function, down syndrome people should be more 'evolved' than non down syndrome people. Please explain to me the improvement in the physical characteristics of down syndrome? cancers?, spontaneous abortions?, edwards syndrome? patau syndrome?

Gene duplication.

hi what are you doing hi what are you doing hi what are you doing

There is no new information. It is copies. The bases still retain there original sequence.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hay Mark is that 9x% is that in only coding regions which is less than 2%?

96% is the overall sequence identity. The protein coding genes are actually pretty close.

Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with ~29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage.​

Actually had a scientist that worked on the paper send me a spread sheet of the genes. There are some 40,000 base pairs that diverge, can't recall how many base pairs involved.

Here are some excerpts, I wasn't able to nail down a lot of the percentages as ratio but here are some of the highlights from the paper:

We began by identifying a set of 13,454 pairs of human and chimpanzee genes

KA/KS > 1 implies, but is not a necessary condition for, adaptive or positive selection.

About 5% of the proteins show in-frame indels, but these tend to be small (median = 1 codon)

A total of 585 of the 13,454 human–chimpanzee orthologues (4.4%) have observed KA/KI > 1
​

Ok, when the KA/KI ratio is over 1 is considered rapidly evolving which is another way of saying significant difference. This is indicating 4.4% but you should realize that most of the genes are involved in immunity and oflactory sense (sense of smell). The only way I was able to track down the brain related genes was through research specialized for that purpose, identifying specific genes and their differences.

We found a total of 53 known or predicted human genes that are either deleted entirely (36) or partially (17) in chimpanzee

There is tentative evidence from in-depth analysis of divergence and diversity that natural selection is not the major contributor to the large-scale patterns of genetic variability in humans​

That's about it, I have often heard it said that the 98% the same statement stands with regards to protein coding genes. I really don't see how, it looks like the difference remain somewhat consistent with the overall divergence.

Now the sequence identify may well be close to 98%, in fact I think it is. The thing is there are 50 genes that chimpanzees and humans do not have in common and there are over 500 that have (or would have had to) undergone accelerated evolution as indicated by the KA/KI ratio above 1.

You have to understand, your DNA and my DNA is virtually identical, well over 99% the same. That holds true for any two human beings on the planet. We will have all the same genes with differences being mutations which most often damages the genes function.

With genes you have to make direct comparisons of specific genes, overall comparisons can go down a lot of side roads.

Gene duplication.

Hang on a sec, this one is important, this is a real world adaptive phenomenon. It happens rather seldom but it's pretty dramatic. Now it can cause disease and disorder as well do nothing at all, don't get me wrong. Just sometimes some pretty dramatic things happen. My favorite example is the arctic fish that has an antifreeze gene, in a virtually identical species in southern waters that gene does not exist in their genomes. What is more, it was not copied from any known gene sequence, it's not a duplication, it's a brand new gene. But wait, there's more, it evolved simultaneously in the northern arctic and southern arctic in distinctly different ways but with the exact same effect, they don't freeze solid.

How? You can forget about random mutations, that is one of the most absurd arguments Darwinians use. There has to be a molecular mechanism that is triggered by sub zero weather and neither I nor anyone has a clue what that mechanism is.

Do yourself a favor, never argue against evolution. Argue against the hidden definition of evolution which are the naturalistic assumptions, not the natural process by which things adapt to their environment.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[samaus12345]

Ah k yah im reading "molecular biology of the cell" by alberts et al and up to the section on genome 'evolution' etc and they look at the same MOLECULE/PROTEIN in different organisms (like its talking about leptin) and how it might differ from only a few amino acids/bases in the DNA and then 'infer' based on the similarity the gene duplication event/'evolution' of it from a 'common ancestor' or whatever x million years ago. I can hardly believe how r e t a r d e d some of this stuff is, it is the same MOLECULE what the bleep do they expect lol?

My favorite example is the arctic fish that has an antifreeze gene, in a virtually identical species in southern waters that gene does not exist in their genomes.

Yes but i posted the literature where the assign it off into the unobserved past (the neofunctionalization). Its an 'inference' from their apriori axiom. They specifically are saying its neofunctionalization. They represent it, not you or i, so i take their word for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofunctionalization

The evolution of the antifreeze protein in the Antarctic zoarcid fish provides a prime example of Neofunctionalization after gene duplication

 

[Metal Minister]

You have to understand, your DNA and my DNA is virtually identical, well over 99% the same. That holds true for any two human beings on the planet. We will have all the same genes with differences being mutations which most often damages the genes function.



Grace and peace,
Mark

Grace and peace,
Mark

Kind of lends itself to the idea of Adam and Eve and then Noah doesn't it!

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[samaus12345]

Yes exactly lol

 

[KhaosTheory]

Please explain to me the improvement in the physical characteristics of down syndrome? cancers?, spontaneous abortions?, edwards syndrome? patau syndrome?

Whoever said that every single duplication would be an improvement? Evolution never predicted that. It's rare but there are several known cases on gene duplication that had beneficial affects.

You haven't heard of the family that had children born with a double copy of LRP5? They now have super strong bones...

This is exactly what evolution predicts... Most mutations are neutral of harmful so they don't pass on but the beneficial ones are selected and then carry on.

Gene duplication...
There is no new information. It is copies. The bases still retain there original sequence.

What is "information"? I still don't understand what that means...
If gene duplication leads to a new phenotype then is THAT considered new information? because I just gave you an example of that...

Besides, did you forget that duplication isn't the only types of mutations that are possible?
What about deletion, inversion, insertion, and translocation?
Is any of that new information? Why or why not?

Some of those mutations are Loss-of-function (mutations are the result of gene product having less or no function.)

But some are Gain-of-function (mutations change the gene product such that it gains a new and abnormal function.)
Is gaining a new function considered new "information"?

You know the English language has changed in the same way. Over the years we've added, deleted, and copied many other words since the language started. Now it's very different from when it started. Did we add any new "information' to English?

 

[mark kennedy]

Whoever said that every single duplication would be an improvement? Evolution never predicted that. It's rare but there are several known cases on gene duplication that had beneficial affects.

Define evolution and exactly what are the predictions of evolution? Gene duplications are not adverse to Creationism, as a phenomenon it remains neutral to the subject of origins.

You haven't heard of the family that had children born with a double copy of LRP5? They now have super strong bones...

How nice for them.

This is exactly what evolution predicts... Most mutations are neutral of harmful so they don't pass on but the beneficial ones are selected and then carry on.

Define evolution and I must learn more of these predictions because you are claiming a confirmed prediction post hoc. Where are these predictions?

What is "information"? I still don't understand what that means...
If gene duplication leads to a new phenotype then is THAT considered new information? because I just gave you an example of that...

You would actually have to read some of the scientific literature from Genetics research to appreciate the expression. It's a common expression for the functionality of the DNA sequence attributed to Crick who coined the expression in his seminal work of the DNA double helix. Intelligent Design people are very found of it.

Besides, did you forget that duplication isn't the only types of mutations that are possible?
What about deletion, inversion, insertion, and translocation?
Is any of that new information? Why or why not?

Mutations are a failure of DNA repair, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the time they are neutral and the balance is most often deleterious if not lethal. Correct me if I'm wrong, haven't you studied mutation rates and their effects on fittness.

Some of those mutations are Loss-of-function (mutations are the result of gene product having less or no function.)

right

But some are Gain-of-function (mutations change the gene product such that it gains a new and abnormal function.)
Is gaining a new function considered new "information"?

depends on the sequence the function is based on.

 

[samaus12345]

It's rare but there are several known cases on gene duplication that had beneficial affects.

But some are Gain-of-function (mutations change the gene product such that it gains a new and abnormal function.)
Is gaining a new function considered new "information"?

Neither of these HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED (have to shout to get the point across sorry not personal). Again PLEASE AT ANY TIME FEEL FREE TO BACK UP A STATEMENT WITH LITERATURE, that you have at least skimmed and get the general overview of it ,then link it please. In the literature they start with the apriori assumption that the moving creatures that have life in the waters/beasts of the field/herb yielding seed after its kind/fowl that flies above the earth in the open firmament of heaven/in the image of god he created them,male and female he created them, came from non living matter (without Gods breath of life) ~3.5 billion years ago and then 'infer' gene duplication/'neofunctionalization' based on that. I can 'infer' anything on the planet if i want.

Yes i dont fully get how they measure the information content of the CELL either, i think they are doing like the whole cell now in information theory/computer science, like all the organelles/macromolecules etc. For the nuclear DNA though a mutation that adds functionally sequenced base pairs that code for the 'right' codons which then code for the 'right' amino acids for a functional protein would be an increase in 'information' but again its never been observed...

"Neofunctionalization' says a gene duplication takes place,one copy retains ancestral function,while the new copy is "free from selective pressure and free to accumulate point mutations" HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA

Again this will be 'inferred' in the literature, from their apriori starting point. They look at gene families/protein families and then 'infer' the 'neofunctionalization' event.

Even if a whole chromosome gets duplicated (like down syndrome trisomy 21) then its still the same sequence of bases. Based on 'neofunctionalization' down syndrome people should be more 'evolved' than people without it .Does this sound logical?

Neofunctionalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

attributed to Crick who coined the expression in his seminal work of the DNA double helix. Intelligent Design people are very found of it.

ooh where can i find this please? Watched the dude talk on youtube, he made some comments how he thought blacks wernt as 'evolved'

 

[KhaosTheory]

Define evolution and exactly what are the predictions of evolution? Gene duplications are not adverse to Creationism, as a phenomenon it remains neutral to the subject of origins.

Well, in this context, evolution would predict that we should see many 'dead end' phenotypes that weren't selected and a few "fit" phenotypes that survived the environment and lead to a divergence and emergence of a new species thus driving evolution.

I already know that gene duplications aren't adverse to creationism... That wasn't the point.

My point was that it's incorrect to say that duplications don't add new information because, first of all, "information" is an obfuscated term that creationists like to use in their hand-waving since it doesn't have any clear meaning.

If "information" means that it specifically adds new sequences then NO it's not new information; but if it means that it leads to the emergence of new traits then YES it is new information and we've shown it.

But I can't ever get a clear definition of "information" from creationists and I suspect they would prefer to leave the term undefined in order to avoid having to explicitly explain it. It's just dishonesty.

Mutations are a failure of DNA repair, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the time they are neutral and the balance is most often deleterious if not lethal. Correct me if I'm wrong, haven't you studied mutation rates and their effects on fittness.

I just want to hear you admit that SOMETIMES it's possible for these DNA failures to produce something beneficial to the organism.

You can't deny this.

 

[KhaosTheory]

Neither of these HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED (have to shout to get the point across sorry not personal). Again PLEASE AT ANY TIME FEEL FREE TO BACK UP A STATEMENT WITH LITERATURE, that you have at least skimmed and get the general overview of it ,then link it please.

Oh my... are you serious?

CCR5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LRP5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistant_bacteria

http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jan/secret-of-superboys-strength/

Just to name A FEW...

Just google "beneficial mutations"

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, in this context, evolution would predict that we should see many 'dead end' phenotypes that weren't selected and a few "fit" phenotypes that survived the environment and lead to a divergence and emergence of a new species thus driving evolution.

Still not clear on what kind of a definition you are working from. Can you define the theory in less abstract terms because it's still sounding very general and post hoc in it's orientation.

I already know that gene duplications aren't adverse to creationism... That wasn't the point.

The role of mutations would seem to be the point, what are you getting at then?

My point was that it's incorrect to say that duplications don't add new information because, first of all, "information" is an obfuscated term that creationists like to use in their hand-waving since it doesn't have any clear meaning.

The expression is as old as genetics, at least since the discovery of the DNA double helix. The concept of 'specificity' is also a profoundly scientific concept that has a richness of meaning geneticists seem very comfortable with. Appealing to the concept of 'information' as an apt description of the functionality of DNA is perfectly in keeping with the sciences or our day. It has a very clear meaning and mutations are highly disruptive, even when the occasional rare benefit occurs.

If "information" means that it specifically adds new sequences then NO it's not new information; but if it means that it leads to the emergence of new traits then YES it is new information and we've shown it.

We? Are you involved in research or experimentation in this field?

But I can't ever get a clear definition of "information" from creationists and I suspect they would prefer to leave the term undefined in order to avoid having to explicitly explain it. It's just dishonesty.

And yet you leave evolution undefined, same token.

I just want to hear you admit that SOMETIMES it's possible for these DNA failures to produce something beneficial to the organism.

Sometimes we will, I know I often do. In fact, I search for research in this area with a special interest in adaptive evolution resulting from failures of DNA repair. The problem is that they are very rare and yet, adaptive evolution seems rather common. The problem is that you are not explaining normative adaptive evolution, as a matter of fact, you are not even defining your use of the term and that is less then honest by your own ethical standard.

You can't deny this.

Why would I want to, or need to for that matter?

 

[samaus12345]

Dude i said LITERATURE NOT GARBAGE. AND PLEASE SKIM IT FIRST.

I just want to hear you admit that SOMETIMES it's possible for these DNA failures to produce something beneficial to the organism.

NO well.... depending on the environment (Africa) a mutation (that begins with destruction loss of 'information' and this is the whole point) may confer something 'beneficial' (sickle cell trait). One defective allele might be considered 'beneficial' but is it 'beneficial' if people with just one defective allele for it get together with another? And have a kid with sickle cell anemia? It starts with loss of 'information'. Like slashing my cars tyres so someone cant steal it... Yay!!!! they cant still my car, well thats good right? Zoom out and look at the bigger picture...i destroyed something...and then depending on the environment (thief-rich) it might confer an 'advantage'.


ty iop wer snf rmpda
Hi how are you going

Both contain the same amount of 'statistical' information. But the second one contains 'functional' information. Life only cares about this. I cant convey a message to someone with only 'statistical' information. Yes i need 'statistical' information but i need to arrange it functionally. Enter DNA. Bases are coded such that they INHERENTLY code for the right codons which code for the right amino acids which code for FUNCTIONAL proteins. Mess around with that sequencing and you may kill someone. So gene duplication isnt even new random base pairs. Its a copy.

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

Not altered, just incomplete. The list I originally posted was intended to be brief and demonstrate that the three-fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes would have started right around 2 million years ago.

But you explicitly said there weren't transitionals, making that part of your argument:

mark wrote (post #42, this thread):

Human ancestors would have had to go from under 600cc on average, immediately followed by Home erectus with a cranial capacity comparable to our own.

There is no transitional, the brain would have had to double in size, pretty much over night.

And even if you didn't, to not list the data implies that it doesn't exist. That's that data that is most important to your argument, so it is imporant to make sure you've included it.

You behavior is exclusively focused on making biting personal remarks in every post, at the heart of the emphasis and driving it home in dramatic fashion. That is a flaw form of logical argumentation theistic evolutionists are uniformly sold out to.

Did you miss all the data in my posts?

I'm not asking anyone to chase anything down. The graph makes it easy to see:

The graph identifies none of the particulars so I end up searching out the scientific literature on the subject. I have had some success along these lines with paleontology and great success with genetics.

As outsiders to the fields, all of the data is not easily available you and I. That's why I suggested taking a college course on it if you are interested in having a complete data set to work with.

The genomes of chimpanzees and humans are complete, both have been completely sequenced. That 'expert' you like so much made a bogus statement concerning the comparison of Chimpanzee and Human genomes. Would you like to admit the error or would you like to see from the paper he is citing that his statement is false?

mark, we've seen in a whole thread that the % difference can be counted different ways, giving different numbers. This was shown to you by shernren, who actually has some expertise in the area, unlike you or I. That's why I know better than to think I could explain that better than him. That's also why I know better than to question Dr. Saplosky without first going and getting the education so that I know what I'm talking about there.

I'm not asking to do anything with a mulberry bush - just to look at actual data.

Remove the links, remove the images, remove the excessive formatting and all you are left with from Papias are rude remarks. The quote here is typical.

You mean remove the data. And how is the remark above rude?
​

False. 700 and 850 are not in the normal range of 90% of humans.

Still within the human range and by normal I meant modern.

OK, mark, can you supply a reference that 700 and 850 are within the normal human range? They have to be common enough that finding one would be statistically likely. Here is a reference that puts it at around 950:

modern brains average about 1200–1500 ml in volume,......

"Living humans have a cranial capacity ranging from about 950 cc to 1800 cc, with the average about 1400 cc."
​

Volume of a Human Brain


​

mark, do you not understand what "selected" means? It means that it is an incomplete list - because a full list of all the dozens of transitional ape-human fossils would be very long. Plus, as you can see yourself, that's an old list, from 1997.

The list is fine, the fossils are not changing on a daily basis. The problem is that you are not interested in letting substantive details enter the discussion which I'm sure is earning great applause from the back of the theater.

Not a daily basis, but certainly by decade, and that list is over 15 years old.

Reference? Secondly - changing selective pressures are expected to change the rate at which mutations are retained. Thirdly, and most importantly, that's a red herring anyway, since your claim was that the 1 mutation in 100,000 years was somehow too fast, when simple division shows that it's very much a reasonable rate.

No, I'm saying that one mutation would kill the fetus. Get you facts straight.

No reference, still?

Why do you think one mutation would kill the fetus, when we each have multiple mutations, with every birth?

I can give you a hundred diseases and disorders directly related to point mutations in brain related genes. Can you show me a single selective advantage resulting from one?

How many harmful ones you can show is irrelevant, because as explained before, selection removes them. In addition to the many that Dr. Saplosky referenced, here are some more:

Academic Success Could Be Determined By Genetics

​

If you understood genetics, you would understand that the commonalities are nested and too long to be due to chance, while the differences fit well with random mutation.

mark, could you please list your degree and granting institution, if you are going to imply that you understand genetics?
​

What is the rate when 1.33% changes to 4%? That's the question, would you like to see the formula again?

Do you seriously consider 1.33 to 4 to be an increase that is hard to understand?

I understand mutation rates just fine,

So you agree that it only takes a low and quite reasonable mutation rate to supply the beneficial mutations you are talking about?

do you understand the effects of mutations on brain related genes or would you like a reading list?

As pointed out before, like all mutations, there are expected to be more harmful that beneficial, which is corrected by natural selection. Saying that the fact that there are harmful ones matters is like saying that "I can show you a hundred losing lottery tickets, therefore, a winning lottery ticket is impossible."

Papias

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

jinx wrote:

Papias. So knowing that they assign it off into the UNOBSERVED past you still place faith in the atheists timeline origin as opposed to Gods?

I addressed your "unobserved past" by pointing out most science is based on past work, as is most of our understanding. More importantly, the modern, evidence based understanding of the timeline is not the "atheists timeline", but is shown by God's creation, and was discovered, confirmed, and supported today by more Christians than atheists. Calling it the "atheist's timeline" only hurts Christianity.

Based on the MYTH that gene duplication gives rise to new FUNCTIONAL proteins while the ancestral copy retains ancestral function, down syndrome people should be more 'evolved' than non down syndrome people. Please explain to me the improvement in the physical characteristics of down syndrome? cancers?, spontaneous abortions?, edwards syndrome? patau syndrome?

Gene duplication.

hi what are you doing hi what are you doing hi what are you doing

There is no new information. It is copies. The bases still retain there original sequence.

jinx, my earlier post described the process by which a gene duplication first makes a copy (which is unneeded at the time), and later mutations change that "extra" copy to do something new. The new, changed gene's bases no longer have their original sequence. Did you read that description, and do you see now how it supplies something different than was originally there?

Thanks-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

mark wrote:But you explicitly said there weren't transitionals, making that part of your argument:

mark wrote (post #42, this thread):

Human ancestors would have had to go from under 600cc on average, immediately followed by Home erectus with a cranial capacity comparable to our own.​

That's right Papias, the three fold expansion of the human brain would have started about 2 million years ago with all of the supposed human ancestors having a cranial capacity of under 600cc on average until the advent of Homo erectus.

It never ceases to amaze me how you can be so sketchy in your proofs yet pontificate corrections of errors that aren't errors.

And even if you didn't, to not list the data implies that it doesn't exist. That's that data that is most important to your argument, so it is imporant to make sure you've included it.

That's it, keep arguing in circles.

Did you miss all the data in my posts?

No, I just got tired of tracking down the actual information you scim over.

As outsiders to the fields, all of the data is not easily available you and I. That's why I suggested taking a college course on it if you are interested in having a complete data set to work with.

I would suggest you take a course in logic because you are obsessed with fallacious logic.

mark, we've seen in a whole thread that the % difference can be counted different ways, giving different numbers. This was shown to you by shernren, who actually has some expertise in the area, unlike you or I. That's why I know better than to think I could explain that better than him. That's also why I know better than to question Dr. Saplosky without first going and getting the education so that I know what I'm talking about there.

Are you aware that you said nothing in that paragraph?

You mean remove the data. And how is the remark above rude?

All of your remarks are rude, that's what you do here.

OK, mark, can you supply a reference that 700 and 850 are within the normal human range? They have to be common enough that finding one would be statistically likely. Here is a reference that puts it at around 950:

Stop, check the dates and we can talk about this again.

modern brains average about 1200–1500 ml in volume,...... ​

Anything from about 700 cc is within human range and it overlaps with chimpanzee high range, at least the ancestral variety that are fraudulently being passed off as human.

I'll come back and dance in circles with you later.​

 

[KhaosTheory]

Still not clear on what kind of a definition you are working from. Can you define the theory in less abstract terms because it's still sounding very general and post hoc in it's orientation.

Sounds like you are just trying to confuse the issue. Evolution meaning "changes in allele frequencies" is a FACT. The THEORY of evolution by natural selection is what we colloquially call "evolution".

How it this abstract?

The expression is as old as genetics, at least since the discovery of the DNA double helix. The concept of 'specificity' is also a profoundly scientific concept that has a richness of meaning geneticists seem very comfortable with. Appealing to the concept of 'information' as an apt description of the functionality of DNA is perfectly in keeping with the sciences or our day. It has a very clear meaning and mutations are highly disruptive, even when the occasional rare benefit occurs.

So "information" means "the functionality of DNA"? Therefore if we ever observe a change in the function of DNA then that would be considered new information?

Well, in that case, down syndrome would be adding new "information" because it definitely does change the function of DNA.

We? Are you involved in research or experimentation in this field?

I did have the honor of studying in Dr. Goswani's department at USF but that doesn't matter. Google will give you a ton of observed examples of this.

Sometimes we will, I know I often do. In fact, I search for research in this area with a special interest in adaptive evolution resulting from failures of DNA repair. The problem is that they are very rare and yet, adaptive evolution seems rather common. The problem is that you are not explaining normative adaptive evolution, as a matter of fact, you are not even defining your use of the term and that is less then honest by your own ethical standard.

There's only one scientific definition for evolution and I've used it correctly.

Why do you need me to explain evolution to you? Does your google not work? Are you saying that "failures in DNA repair" aka "mutations" are physically incapable of leading to occasional beneficial traits that are then naturally selected and are passed on to succesive generation?

This concept is so easy to understand so I don't know why you are having a hard time with it.

Let's say 9 baby birds are born with short feathers and 1 is born with a mutation that caused their feathers to grow longer.

When the birds reach maturity the parent pushes them all out of the nest to teach them to fly. it just so happens that the baby bird with longer feathers was able to gain more lift and survive the fall but it's brothers all fell to their deaths.

A few years later, this bird has grown up and mates with another bird. Now most of their babies all have the gene for longer feathers.

Eventually the parents of the short feather birds all die out and now there are only long feathered birds left.

Over time, more and more traits are selected in this way until the latest bird descendants don't look much like their ancestors at all... they perhaps have MUCH larger wings, a different beak, different color feathers, etc.

Now these new birds are so genetically different from the original bird population that when given a chance to mate with the old group they are unable to produce any living offspring because they are so physically and genetically different.... at this point we would call them a new SPECIES.

Fast forward millions of years and this same simple process of selected mutations could have caused this family of birds to split into different groups... maybe one group lost their wings entirely when the environment changed and now they are subterranean creatures... maybe the other group developed near the ocean and inherited traits that turned them into penguin-like creatures with flippers and the ability to dive deep under water.

All of this is perfectly possible if we can prove that this simple mechanism for inheriting beneficial mutations is possible... which we've done.

I know why you want to deny that mutations can sometimes be beneficial... If you can walk 20 feet you can walk 20 miles and you realize that if you accept that creatures can change and speciate due to selected mutations then you'd be forced to admit that full-scale macro evolution is possible.

 

[KhaosTheory]

Dude i said LITERATURE NOT GARBAGE. AND PLEASE SKIM IT FIRST.




NO well.... depending on the environment (Africa) a mutation (that begins with destruction loss of 'information' and this is the whole point) may confer something 'beneficial' (sickle cell trait). One defective allele might be considered 'beneficial' but is it 'beneficial' if people with just one defective allele for it get together with another? And have a kid with sickle cell anemia? It starts with loss of 'information'. Like slashing my cars tyres so someone cant steal it... Yay!!!! they cant still my car, well thats good right? Zoom out and look at the bigger picture...i destroyed something...and then depending on the environment (thief-rich) it might confer an 'advantage'.


ty iop wer snf rmpda
Hi how are you going

Both contain the same amount of 'statistical' information. But the second one contains 'functional' information. Life only cares about this. I cant convey a message to someone with only 'statistical' information. Yes i need 'statistical' information but i need to arrange it functionally. Enter DNA. Bases are coded such that they INHERENTLY code for the right codons which code for the right amino acids which code for FUNCTIONAL proteins. Mess around with that sequencing and you may kill someone. So gene duplication isnt even new random base pairs. Its a copy.

I would suggest you learn a little about genetics before you post. Your "statistical information" example just shows that you don't have very good understanding of it yet.

Scrambling letters in a phrase is a terrible analogy for DNA because DNA is NOT a language... There's no outside interpreter telling DNA what it's chemicals should do like there is with language.

Also, out-right denying proof when it is presented to you without even commenting on it is a very dishonest tactic. I'm not going to continue responding to your posts unless you'll agree to actively participate in this discussion instead of simply blowing off everything that's presented to you.

You asked for information and I gave you the courteous of providing you with it. Now please tell me why the examples I gave for beneficial gene duplications don't count in your mind.

 

[KimberlyAA]

lol that's quite interesting. Talk about an extreme way to confuse someone XD

 

[jilfe]

If you enjoy entertaining the thought concept of evolution, that's your perogative, and your right to do so, nobody is against your personal choice in the matter,
HOWEVER, if you try to pawn it off as if God did His creation that way, then we as Christians need to step in, and correct that assumption.

That is a very ludicrase assumption against the written Word of God.

Anyone who understands the Biblical message of Creation, and Redemption, it is made very clear, written down for anyone who chooses to let God's Word speak for itself, that evolution, is totally opposite of Gods written Word.

Play with your science and entertain your theories, trats your private right, as an individual, but keep it at your natural level of understanding, and let the Divine ordinance of God out of it, otherwise if you bring God into it, you no longer are entertaining evolution, but now a acusation against our Holy and Righteous God, who is above all physical laws, and does NOT need to work in the constraints of physical sciences.

He does His work SUPERNATURALLY.

Therefore His creation was done SUPERNATURALLY, OUTSIDE of physical laws, it is plainly written in His Word, for anyone to read.

 

[mark kennedy]

Sounds like you are just trying to confuse the issue. Evolution meaning "changes in allele frequencies" is a FACT. The THEORY of evolution by natural selection is what we colloquially call "evolution".

I think you mean 'the change of allele frequencies in populations over time' which is the scientific definition 100% compatible with creationism and naturalistic assumptions 100% opposed to the inference of God as cause going all the way back to the Big Bang. Natural selection is nothing more then the a priori rejection of the miraculous in favour of some, presently unknown, natural laws of evolution responsible for the origin and development of life on this planet.

How it this abstract?

I'm in the process of demonstrating that.

So "information" means "the functionality of DNA"? Therefore if we ever observe a change in the function of DNA then that would be considered new information?

If it has the specified complexity the way triplet codons program amino acids.

Well, in that case, down syndrome would be adding new "information" because it definitely does change the function of DNA.

It changes it by damaging it, that not function that's dysfunction.

I did have the honor of studying in Dr. Goswani's department at USF but that doesn't matter. Google will give you a ton of observed examples of this.

I don't think so but thanks anyway.

There's only one scientific definition for evolution and I've used it correctly.

No, you had two definitions and the scientific one was incomplete.

Why do you need me to explain evolution to you? Does your google not work? Are you saying that "failures in DNA repair" aka "mutations" are physically incapable of leading to occasional beneficial traits that are then naturally selected and are passed on to succesive generation?

I never said they were incapable, they just don't explain adaptive evolution in terms of the molecular mechanisms responsible. I know what some of them are, I'm waiting to see if you have anything other then random errors as an explanation.

This concept is so easy to understand so I don't know why you are having a hard time with it.

I understand fine, your the one who is begging the question.

Let's say 9 baby birds are born with short feathers and 1 is born with a mutation that caused their feathers to grow longer.

When the birds reach maturity the parent pushes them all out of the nest to teach them to fly. it just so happens that the baby bird with longer feathers was able to gain more lift and survive the fall but it's brothers all fell to their deaths.

A few years later, this bird has grown up and mates with another bird. Now most of their babies all have the gene for longer feathers.

Eventually the parents of the short feather birds all die out and now there are only long feathered birds left.

Which requires the gene for longer feathers to be produced in the first place. Darwin's Finches have been making these changes in size and shape over many generations and guess what? The are cyclical not gradualistic so the prima facia evidence is found to be riddled with flaws yet again, one as to the cause and two as to the long term fixation of the trait. I have the sneaking suspicion that you already know this and you are hoping I won't.

Over time, more and more traits are selected in this way until the latest bird descendants don't look much like their ancestors at all... they perhaps have MUCH larger wings, a different beak, different color feathers, etc.

Now these new birds are so genetically different from the original bird population that when given a chance to mate with the old group they are unable to produce any living offspring because they are so physically and genetically different.... at this point we would call them a new SPECIES.

You forgot the part where the change in the requisite gene happens, by what molecular mechanism and by what series of checks and balances the favourable trait navigates the functional constraints.

Fast forward millions of years and this same simple process of selected mutations could have caused this family of birds to split into different groups... maybe one group lost their wings entirely when the environment changed and now they are subterranean creatures... maybe the other group developed near the ocean and inherited traits that turned them into penguin-like creatures with flippers and the ability to dive deep under water.

We are not fast forwarding anything, first you have to have the requisite changes, then they have to be inheritable, then benefit of selection has to outweigh the costs. You are skipping a lot of steps but Darwinians always do.

All of this is perfectly possible if we can prove that this simple mechanism for inheriting beneficial mutations is possible... which we've done.

You've done nothing of the sort and who is this 'we'?

I know why you want to deny that mutations can sometimes be beneficial... If you can walk 20 feet you can walk 20 miles and you realize that if you accept that creatures can change and speciate due to selected mutations then you'd be forced to admit that full-scale macro evolution is possible.

I have not the slightest intention of denying that beneficial effects sometimes result from 'copy errors', just that they are a vehicle for adaptive traits on an evolutionary scale. You are assuming the beneficial, the heritability and the cumulative and progressive nature of the serendipitous copy errors. Let's cut to the chase because you have been sold a bill of goods that are grossly inadequate to satisfy any burden of proof within a valid scientific theory.

Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. Some are neutral, that is, they produce no effect strong enough to permit selection for or against; a mutation that is deleterious or advantageous in a large population may be neutral in a small population, where random drift outweighs selection coefficients. The impact of mutation is quite different in different DNA sequences. Rates of Spontaneous Mutation​

Why don't you do a little reading on the subject of mutations and start taking into consideration the deleterious and neutral effects of mutations and we can talk some more. Who knows, you might even learn something about why the mutation rate that would have been required for humans to have evolved from an ape ancestor but if you did you would be the first.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

If you enjoy entertaining the thought concept of evolution, that's your perogative, and your right to do so, nobody is against your personal choice in the matter,
HOWEVER, if you try to pawn it off as if God did His creation that way, then we as Christians need to step in, and correct that assumption.

That's just it, evolution has two definitions, one is the a priori (without prior) assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes and the other is the 'change of alleles (traits) in populations over time'. It's a mistake to reject both because the former is unrelated to science and the latter is 100% consistent with the Genesis account of creation, in fact, much more consistent then with random mutations getting all the credit.

That is a very ludicrase assumption against the written Word of God.

Yes, 'assumption', that's what we are dealing with here.

Anyone who understands the Biblical message of Creation, and Redemption, it is made very clear, written down for anyone who chooses to let God's Word speak for itself, that evolution, is totally opposite of Gods written Word.

Which evolution, the scientific definition or the naturalistic assumption of Darwinians because there is a profoundly important difference.

Play with your science and entertain your theories, trats your private right, as an individual, but keep it at your natural level of understanding, and let the Divine ordinance of God out of it, otherwise if you bring God into it, you no longer are entertaining evolution, but now a acusation against our Holy and Righteous God, who is above all physical laws, and does NOT need to work in the constraints of physical sciences.

He does His work SUPERNATURALLY.

Therefore His creation was done SUPERNATURALLY, OUTSIDE of physical laws, it is plainly written in His Word, for anyone to read.

You must understand, when speaking to a Darwinian they have already rejected the miraculous as a possible cause.

He (Lamarck) first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Preface)​

There are two assumptions here, the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means, is the first one. The second one is that if you fail to make the first assumption then you must be ignorant of science and evolution. Both are deeply flawed and easily refuted if you realize you are dealing with two definitions of evolution at the same time.

Grace and peace,
Mark