Question for sjt18

[fl0at]

That the processes we see at work in nature and can reproduce through operational sciences like husbandry are working in exactly the OPPOSITE direction than that required by macroevolution.

How so? It is simple population genetics. If you start with two cows and breed them, you get cows. Do you slaughter the strongest bull and bread the weakest bull? Do you slaughter the cow that produced strong calves and keep the cow that gave birth to the sickly calves?

Absolutely not, not if you want to stay in livestock business. As such, you are providing SELECTION against the individuals to alter the POPULATION such that in 10 years, you hope to have a population worthy of breeding and feeding.

I can expand this further to get to how it can be "macroevolution," if you so wish, although it would be pointless, as it takes more than simple breeding to achieve "macroevolution," and as such, your entire statement is rather fuzzy.

Mutations and deletions along with selection which are the means by which we can observe and make changes in populations are not adding the amount or kinds of information needed to produce higher forms of animals.

Again, how so? Mutations, of which deletions are one type, don't really provide information. They alter the information available, which is why they are called "mutations."

As the "information" is altered, so too is the end product (new proteins, altered proteins, etc). The end product (actually the function of the end product, but we'll keep it simple) determines the makeup.

If you alter that end product, you have altered the original and created something new. It starts as a modification of the original, but over time, as the two begin to diverge, you end up with two distinctly different species.

That is divergent evolution in its simplest.

To the contrary, they are working progressively to move animals toward less adaptability and extinction.

This may be the most accurate thing you've said, but I don't think it was said based on the most accurate information. Evolution via selection is not predictive, and thus does not alter adaptivity. It simply causes the population to alter in such a way that those more fit for their environment produce more offspring.

The offspring may or may not be more adaptive to their environment.

Let's take fish as an example. There are some fish that are brightly colored and beautiful, and they reproduce way more than their ugly and dark counter parts.

Guess which one gets eaten by predators first? You guessed it, the pretty fish. But they have high fitness so they stick around, but they are not adapted to their environment.

That doesn't mean that their mutation led them to be less adaptive, because there are other things that could have happened. The fish could have been there first, and the stream could have been a beautiful clear color where the color of the fish didn't matter. The stream could have changed to a muddy brown. The predator could have developed a better taste for the bright colored fish.

Evolution via selection, therefore, had nothing to do with adaptivity, though it might alter the population at a later date.

As to the extinction: yes. Eventually, mutation accumulation will cause extinction. This is why some* high level evolutionary biologists could care less about the panda, and as one once said, "They'll be dead in 100,000 years anyway, so why try now."

Population genetics provides a pretty good amount of ammo for critics or evolution

Um, quite the opposite in fact. I'll allow you to reflect on why that is (recall ratios).

 

[sjt18]

Positive for which? If the organism was quite content as a single cell, and it was driven to multicellular, that isn't necessarily a "positive." A stimulus that is positive for a single cell can be quite negative for the host.

As to which came first... that would be the means to get them together (a water based environment) followed by the organism that had "both," and was able to self-reproduce, or self-fertilize. To put it as simply as possible.

Are you evading or do you really not understand the problems evolution have here?

In the second answer for instance you blew right by the fact that natural selection does not favor organisms carrying useless "baggage". All of the things necessary for sexual reproduction would have had to converge in such a way that no necessary component was disfavored by selection before this very, very complex system was complete.

Long periods of time to get from point A to Q, but not to point B. There is no requirement that speciation takes a long time to occur, or even an accumulation of many mutations. A rather clear cut example would be the Finches of the Galapogas Islands, as told in the popular book The Beak of the Finch.

The finch is a HORRIBLE example for evolution. It is VERY much supportive of what I have said. The original finch population had the genetic information for both beak types... just like the basic "dog" has the information for a very small or large dog... long ears or spiked ones. The population was divided and selection favored beak types due to the available food. Eventually mutation or deletion is reinforced through inbreeding to the point where the two populations no longer have the genetic ability to produce the other type of beak.

Without the other what? Why would populations naturally reject mutants?

Possibly because they are programmed that way. It is pretty much universal that mammal mothers reject offspring and often eat them when they are abnormal.

Natural selection acting on individuals causes populations to change.

No. It doesn't and this distinction is very important. Natural selection is the process by which genetic expressions within a population derived from the possibilities within the genome are favored or disfavored for survival. The information is already there. New information does not arise simply because the environment changes.

According to the creation model, natural selection would result in many and increasing extinctions as genomes lose their genetic variability due to accumulating mutations and deletions.

If the mutation is beneficial and heritable, then the individual will be positively selected for (meaning it will reproduce more) and its offspring will accumulate. The population dynamic has now changed. Not only has the population NOT rejected the mutant, the population in fact had no say in the aspect whatsoever.

There are multiple real world problems with this simplistic explanation. It sounds convincing in a classroom or book... but doesn't work quite like that in nature.

As mentioned before, detrimental mutations outnumber beneficial mutations by a factor of at least 1000:1. Worse yet, the expression of the beneficial mutation will almost always be inextricably linked to harmful mutations.

I think sickle cell anemia was brought up. The mutation apparently denies an entry point to malaria. That is obviously something that could be favored in sub-saharan Africa. But the associated health problems with it are numerous. A short term benefit of survival actually hurts the carrier of the mutation's fitness on the whole.

If you take a group of 100 males and every single one are identical, except that 1 individual has a mutation that allows him to mate with and produce even 10 more offspring than the others, and all his children inheret that trait, it is simple math to see that that one single mutation can affect the entire population dynamic.

True. And this fact is very bad news for evolution. Most mutations do not express themselves in a noticeable way as soon as they arise. Again, the overwhelming majority of mutations are detrimental. That means they won't be selected. Throughout all genomes, we have a progressive accumulation of "bad" mutations and deletions. Natural selection cannot protect from these since by the time there is an expression to be disfavored, the mutations are so widely spread that they get reproduced anyway.

99 children from the other 99 males, and 10 children from the 1 alternate. You now have a 99:10 ratio. Well, the next generation, you get 9910+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10). Imagine just (3) generations. The population has not only changed, but the entire gene pool is now altered.

Precisely.

And these changes do not nor have they ever demonstrated the ability to expand the limits of adaptability. It is fixed and shrinking with the accumulation of mutations in the existing genomes. Dog breeding is a good case study. You can push the genes to a certain point one way or the other... but there is a limit that cannot be crossed.

The things evolutionists count on to produce new information and to push the species up to higher levels... simply don't do it. They do the opposite. Those processes are driving ALL life toward extinction.

No, for evolution to work, you only need fitness and selection. Not strength.

Sorry, but no. Macroevolution says the processes we've been discussing will increase the complexity of life and produce both new species and orders of animals.

For evolution to work, successive generations must become effectively "more fit" than their ancestors. The direct evidence says just the opposite is happening.

My son will inherit roughly 100 mutations from my wife and me that none of his grandparents had. Most will not express themselves singularly in a way that is noticeable or has any effect on his ability to reproduce or find a mate. He is more fit than someone with Downs... however that does not mean the mutations he inherited aren't leading toward a "less fit" progeny.

Mutations do not work to create new biological systems, or species, or orders of animals. Mutations are just mutations.

Mutations do create species as we most normally define them.

The outcome is determined later. Mutations that lead to issues (such as cancer) are the most common mutations, but they are not the only mutations. This is why it can take a long time (but not always) for a mutation to be passed on to future generations such that a new specie is formed.

IOW's, "I don't have a process that can be observed or repeated by experiment but do have absolute faith that given enough time new, more complex species will arise from a process that in all observations seems to be headed in the opposite direction". That's what I said to start with.

What? If they survived the pesticide, and the others didn't, then they were able to reproduce more than the dead ones, right? An alive insect can produce more kids than a dead one, yea? Thus, the one that lived passed on its genes in a higher percentage than the other, and if the mutation to pesticide was heritable, then its offspring inherited the gene, or not, doesn't matter. The population has then evolved. Simple as that. There is now a higher percentage of one insect with gene X to the old population of gene Y (the population has changed... and it occurred over time; definition of evolution. )

It "evolved" by losing genetic variability. In the normal environment quite obviously, the trait was not favored. It was only favored in a uniquely environment where the mutant was selected. The whole population devolved.

Science doesn't deal in absolutes. Science deals in probability. The fact that it isn't "good enough" for the average person is irrelevant.

The evidence we see and have discussed makes evolution so improbable that your "just so" answers are not "good enough"... How's that?

Deletion is a mutation. Can you back up the statement that the "original" forms had more variability?

Absolutely. Variability comes from the possible expressions in a genome. Mutations and deletions corrupt, turn off, or delete information.

Every single generation since creation has passed mutations to the next generation... Information has been lost, corrupted, or "turned off" in such a way that it cannot express. Again, there is a 1000:1 or worse ratio of bad/good mutations now and no direct evidence that the ratio has ever been reversed.

If you lose information from a genome, it becomes less capable of adapting for selection.

 

[sjt18]

Something for you to consider while I get some work done.

Up to the point where I say creation occurred... your side doesn't really object. We have known/believed for a very long time that felines, canines, antelope, etc came from a single type of animal. For the most part I think the process I've given you would be accepted and acknowledged.

The debate starts when we discuss how that original type came to be and by what process.

 

[fl0at]

Are you evading or do you really not understand the problems evolution have here?

Not evading at all, asking you to clarify so I can address. Evading would be asking if I were evading...

In the second answer for instance you blew right by the fact that natural selection does not favor organisms carrying useless "baggage". All of the things necessary for sexual reproduction would have had to converge in such a way that no necessary component was disfavored by selection before this very, very complex system was complete.

Huh? Natural selection has no say so whatsoever in "baggage." How do you arrive at the conclusion that it does? Natural selection does not "trim" the "fat" of the organism, it responds to phenotype based on genotype. It has nothing to do with removing "baggage."

Also, there are numerous plants that can self-pollinate or cross-pollinate. There are polyps that are capable of both sexual and a-sexual reproduction, by the same organism.

There are numerous examples of cases where "useful" was not selected for, and cases where "useful" was selected for. Natural selection very often does discount the "useful."

I'd be interested in seeing what makes you believe the contrary.

The finch is a HORRIBLE example for evolution. It is VERY much supportive of what I have said. The original finch population had the genetic information for both beak types... just like the basic "dog" has the information for a very small or large dog... long ears or spiked ones. The population was divided and selection favored beak types due to the available food. Eventually mutation or deletion is reinforced through inbreeding to the point where the two populations no longer have the genetic ability to produce the other type of beak.

Again, huh? Evolution is populations changing over time. The population dynamic of the finch changed... over time. The overall ratio of small to large beaks decreased or increased based on selection criteria. Simple as that.

Again, a deletion is a type of mutation. And in this case, don't even think it applies.

In order for your point to be valid, you would have to believe that each individual finch has the ability to make ALL of the various beak types at any point in its life. How many of the birds changed from a small to large beak during their lifetime? ZERO

This means that no, each individual DID NOT have the full complement of DNA necessary to create all the various beak types.

Again, this is pure Sarfati, so I'll try to restrain myself, but the "variation" is not "inherent" in each individual. A small beak bird can't wake up Tuesday and decide to have a larger beak.

Furthermore, at what point in the embryological period do you perceive that the bird turned off the gene for "big beak" and turned on the gene for "small beak?" Did it just glance over one and pick the other? No, it did not.

So, each individual bird did not carry the "normal" variation. They were, in fact, restricted to the available genetic code they were given. That it takes minor changes in the overall to affect a change in beak size does not mean that each individual bird has all the complement necessary for any beak size.

Possibly because they are programmed that way. It is pretty much universal that mammal mothers reject offspring and often eat them when they are abnormal.

This is not exactly true. Many mammal mothers will eat abnormal offspring if the abnormality is noticeable. In most cases, I would wager that mothers euthanize their children based on food sources far more often than "abnormality."

In addition, abnormalities do not always result from mutation, and phenotypically, the mutated individual may be as normal in appearance as any other based on the "naked eye."

But the naked eye does not see small variation in phenotype that natural selection does indeed see.

No. It doesn't and this distinction is very important. Natural selection is the process by which genetic expressions within a population derived from the possibilities within the genome are favored or disfavored for survival. The information is already there. New information does not arise simply because the environment changes.

No. No. No. Again, and no. Natural selection does not say anything about survival. Natural selection does not ensure that anything survives. Quite the opposite, as I have pointed out with soon to be extinctions.

That the cheetah has evolved, through natural selection, the ability to run extremely fast does not ensure that the cheetah will SURVIVE. It merely means that the cheetah that does survive will have higher probability to reproduce and thus will have a higher fitness. It does not mean that cheetah will survive, simply that the odds that its genetic information will, will be greater.

Furthermore, natural selection does indeed cause populations to change. Would you like me to break out a Hardy-Weinberg for you?

New information AVAILABLE does indeed arise. If you die... you lose the ability to reproduce and your genetic code dies with you. Your genes, contributing to the gene pool, are gone. You have limited the available information. Over time, this means that the population will move further and further away from the original population that contained your genetic information.

Thusly, the population has changed. The information for YOU was not already there, and is now no longer there.

And, to belabor the point, the environment does indeed change the available genetic information. Pollutants, toxins, pathogens, carcinogens, yada yada. These all have affect on DNA and thusly on the individual, and thusly on the population via altering the gene pool.

According to the creation model, natural selection would result in many and increasing extinctions as genomes lose their genetic variability due to accumulating mutations and deletions.
There are multiple real world problems with this simplistic explanation. It sounds convincing in a classroom or book... but doesn't work quite like that in nature.

What? I ask, seriously, because ... HUH? Are you saying that there haven't been numerous extinctions? I just... what are you saying here?

As mentioned before, detrimental mutations outnumber beneficial mutations by a factor of at least 1000:1. Worse yet, the expression of the beneficial mutation will almost always be inextricably linked to harmful mutations.

Again... huh? Yes, mutations are often bad for the individual. Why do you think that it often takes so long for speciation (though not always) to occur? It takes so long because the right combination has to happen. That takes time for obvious reasons.

As to expression of "beneficial" mutation: Huh?

I think sickle cell anemia was brought up. The mutation apparently denies an entry point to malaria. That is obviously something that could be favored in sub-saharan Africa. But the associated health problems with it are numerous. A short term benefit of survival actually hurts the carrier of the mutation's fitness on the whole.

Again, huh? Those with sickle cell die from the disease. Those without sickle cell die from malaria. Those who are heterozygous usually live long and healthy lives.

The mutation does not hurt the carrier's fitness. In fact, at one point, it improved fitness, as the individuals weren't DYING from malaria, and were able to reproduce and pass down their genes to future populations more so than those that were DYING from malaria.

True. And this fact is very bad news for evolution. Most mutations do not express themselves in a noticeable way as soon as they arise. Again, the overwhelming majority of mutations are detrimental. That means they won't be selected. Throughout all genomes, we have a progressive accumulation of "bad" mutations and deletions. Natural selection cannot protect from these since by the time there is an expression to be disfavored, the mutations are so widely spread that they get reproduced anyway.

I'm going to shift gears here... que? I hate to say this, but you are beginning to sound like my girlfriend when we talk football. She often says we scored a touch down and then kicked a field goal... so I'm thinking we're up 10-0. Come back and see the scoreboard read 7.

And I go, ah. She is using a lot of the right terminology, but not in the right sequence and with the meaning she thinks it has. Bless her heart, but she does try.

A detrimental mutation can still be selected for, as is the case of sickle cell. It detrimental to the individual, but still selected for because it offered an advantage over those who were dying from malaria.

And these changes do not nor have they ever demonstrated the ability to expand the limits of adaptability. It is fixed and shrinking with the accumulation of mutations in the existing genomes. Dog breeding is a good case study. You can push the genes to a certain point one way or the other... but there is a limit that cannot be crossed.

Huh? Adaptability has nothing to do with natural selection. When breading dogs, you aren't breading mutation. You breading EXISTING genes that AT ONE POINT in TIME were MUTATED.

You don't bread a Rot and a mut and hope you are getting mutation. The mutation is what led to the Rot and the mut. You are breading the PRODUCT of the FORMER mutation.

The things evolutionists count on to produce new information and to push the species up to higher levels... simply don't do it. They do the opposite. Those processes are driving ALL life toward extinction.

Yes. As I've said, extinction is always the end product. Evolution does not count on "new information" or to move species to "higher" levels.

Evolution is not concerned with that whatsoever. Evolution is the study of populations as they change over time. Whether that change is good, bad or ugly, it does not matter. It is the change that is the subject of the study.

Sorry, but no. Macroevolution says the processes we've been discussing will increase the complexity of life and produce both new species and orders of animals.

For evolution to work, successive generations must become effectively "more fit" than their ancestors. The direct evidence says just the opposite is happening.

Evolution is populations changing over time, period. Macroevolution does not say that complexity of life will increase. Macroevolution is study on or above the level of the species. A specie can go extinct over a long period of geological time... and that would still be macroevolution. The complexity of that specie is now ZERO, a pretty strong indicator that the complexity has decreased...

My son will inherit roughly 100 mutations from my wife and me that none of his grandparents had. Most will not express themselves singularly in a way that is noticeable or has any effect on his ability to reproduce or find a mate. He is more fit than someone with Downs... however that does not mean the mutations he inherited aren't leading toward a "less fit" progeny.

Actually, yea they might. Humans aren't great examples, but yes... your son might have reduced fitness compared to, we'll say, a dude I know that has 9 children from 5 different women.

Now, your son might knock out 10 kids, only time will tell, but right now, I'd wager he has every much reduced fitness compared to the social case that was that young man (aged 20).

And given the social environment, those 9 from old boy will probably have higher fitness than your son's progeny, as they too will probably have at least 1 kid apiece by 18.

Mutations do create species as we most normally define them. IOW's, "I don't have a process that can be observed or repeated by experiment but do have absolute faith that given enough time new, more complex species will arise from a process that in all observations seems to be headed in the opposite direction". That's what I said to start with.

Mutations do not create species. It is way more complex than that. Mutations can provide the ground work, however. But, mutations are simply mutations until acted upon.

It "evolved" by losing genetic variability. In the normal environment quite obviously, the trait was not favored. It was only favored in a uniquely environment where the mutant was selected. The whole population devolved.

How was genetic variability lost? I find that amusing coming from the person who claims that all variation is there, period. If anything, there can never be any change in variation, because it is all there, right? Isn't that what you said earlier? What happened as you got down here?

In the normal environment, the trait was silent. The whole population did not "devolve" as the insects that DO have the trait are still ABLE to function in the normal environment, right?

So, let's see, simple math should do I suppose:

Insect without mutation:
Can survive in Normal environment
Cannot survive in Abnormal environment
Total environments survivable: 1

Insect with mutation:
Can survive in Normal environment
Can survive in Abnormal environment
Total environments survivable: 2

Now, if memory serves, 2 > 1.... yea, clearly a "devolution" and a disadvantage for the mutant...

Absolutely. Variability comes from the possible expressions in a genome. Mutations and deletions corrupt, turn off, or delete information.

Every single generation since creation has passed mutations to the next generation... Information has been lost, corrupted, or "turned off" in such a way that it cannot express. Again, there is a 1000:1 or worse ratio of bad/good mutations now and no direct evidence that the ratio has ever been reversed.

If you lose information from a genome, it becomes less capable of adapting for selection.

Mutations, first of all, do not always corrupt, turn off or delete information. There are many silent mutations that do nothing... at all.

Every single generation has passed on mutations, but that does not mean there is less variation. In fact, it often results in more variation. This is why our genome is 2% or so different from a house fly.

Variation can be increased or decreased by mutation. Decreased variation tends to move toward homozygousity and thus recessive disorders appearing in higher frequency and thus extinction.

Increased variation is why we have survived to this point. And we can thank mutation for that.

 

[fl0at]

Something for you to consider while I get some work done.

Up to the point where I say creation occurred... your side doesn't really object. We have known/believed for a very long time that felines, canines, antelope, etc came from a single type of animal. For the most part I think the process I've given you would be accepted and acknowledged.

The debate starts when we discuss how that original type came to be and by what process.

What process have you given me? Are you stating that you have no object to divergent evolution through natural selection that led to the descent of all known specie on this planet from a common ancestor?

If so, then you are in full agreement with descent of man via the mechanism of evolution.

If not, then I don't understand what "process" you are describing...

 

[sjt18]

What process have you given me? Are you stating that you have no object to divergent evolution through natural selection that led to the descent of all known specie on this planet from a common ancestor?

No. I don't. I have a problem with where evolutionists say the info comes from.

You keep trying to go into microevolution as that somehow answers the needs of macroevolution. It doesn't. We know through experimentation that genomes have boundaries that cannot be crossed. Those boundaries are not expanding as mutations and deletions build up... they are constricting. Population genetics runs contrary to the needs of macroevolution's storyline.

If so, then you are in full agreement with descent of man via the mechanism of evolution.

"Descent" is a very interesting and even agreeable word. Yes. I believe that man was created pristine... perfect... genetically and otherwise. Since the fall, man has "descended". Populations have been isolated and favored certain genetic traits... neanderthal for example. ALL were still human and descendants of a prototype that was more genetically robust than any of his descendants.

I do not believe nor does the real, material evidence show that man "descended" from anything other than another man.

If not, then I don't understand what "process" you are describing...

I believe that the original "cat" was a direct creation and had all the genetic information needed for every variation of cat that now exists or ever did exists. I believe the speciation from that type occurred as populations were acted upon by natural selection, mutation, and deletions. A tiger for instance no longer carries the functional dna to be breed into a house cat and vice versa... but they had an ancestor that had the dna to give rise to both.

Macroevolution demands that there is some mechanism by which the information that makes us different from amoeba has been added over time by natural processes. The processes of mutation, deletion, and natural selection are moving genomes in the opposite direction.

 

[sjt18]

float, there is nothing, ABSOLUTELY nothing, about microevolution that does not work under a creation model or even support one. Few if any have any problem with the living being "descendants" of the dead. Where we get off the bus is with the claim that lower species by some unobserved "miracle" give rise to higher species.

 

[IPorange]

I don't know that there is anything about evolution that removes the possibility of a creator, to be honest. But that's not really the point. It isn't possible for there to be anything that could disprove there is a creator at some level. That in no way indicates that there is one.

 

[IPorange]

So basically IPO your objection is not ultimately scientific but religious?

Actually one of the most interesting theories I've seen on time is that the expansion of the universe was not uniformly spherical. It would be more like blowing up a hot air balloon than and kid's balloon. Ultimately there would be huge depression of highly concentrated gravity that would distort time and light.

FWIW, isn't it pretty much an established fact that the speed of light is not a constant?

I wouldn't say my objection is religious at all. "Rational" comes to mind, but that's a hopelessly biased term. So I'll say philosophical.

The speed of light is a constant, but varies in different mediums (and time is not constant, which is how we measure the speed of light, so...). Even still, you are working backwards trying to find ways for God to fit into our observations. That isn't the same as just making observations. Some argue that science always has a presupposition, but in it's pure form it does not. It is merely a process of studying phenomena. The only reason why we live in a time with the kinds of debates we have about religion is because our observations about the universe and world do not match what we were told for thousands of years by various religions.

In the modern day, many religions are now trying to hybridize and adapt what they say about the universe and world with what has been observed. It's hard to not be cynical about that, as clearly there is not some mystical or magical infallibility about religions, and clearly if there is a God or gods, He/they don't give a flip if we are operating under false information, at least not enough to set the record straight.

 

[fl0at]

float, there is nothing, ABSOLUTELY nothing, about microevolution that does not work under a creation model or even support one. Few if any have any problem with the living being "descendants" of the dead. Where we get off the bus is with the claim that lower species by some unobserved "miracle" give rise to higher species.

http://www.volnation.com/forum/pub/117001-religion-overrated-47.html#post4430185

Read and note the date.

Now, as to the "miracle" that gives rise to "higher species," why is "macroevolution" so impossible whereas "micro" is so plausible in your mind?

If you saw a four winged fly, would you think it a different specie from a two winged fly? Would you think the four winged fly was "higher" than the two winged fly?

Furthermore, what do you consider "higher" and "lower?" Are you a "higher" species than a dog? Or just "higher" than an ant?

No. I don't. I have a problem with where evolutionists say the info comes from.

You keep trying to go into microevolution as that somehow answers the needs of macroevolution. It doesn't. We know through experimentation that genomes have boundaries that cannot be crossed. Those boundaries are not expanding as mutations and deletions build up... they are constricting. Population genetics runs contrary to the needs of macroevolution's storyline.

Again, you need to explain ... all of this. I am shocked to learn that we have expanded and altered every genome of every organism on this planet, in every possible combination. If only they had published that study...

We do not know through experimentation that genomes have "boundaries" that cannot be crossed, except that there may be issue with genomes that are too large for replication and cell size requirement. And even that isn't exactly true, because we don't know what that size is yet.

You have heard of the lung fish, yea? The human genome is about 3 pg of DNA... the lung fish is 133 pg. The flower Paris japonica is 152 pg in size.

So please elaborate as to the "boundaries" of the genome.

Please elaborate as to how mutation is "restrictive?'" Your DNA offers the template for all the proteins in your body. Those proteins are rarely linear and usually not uni-functional. They have very complex folding properties that can be disrupted by varying amino acid sequences from the mRNA transcribed from DNA.

We do not know how all of them work, how they fold or even how various changes in many of them affect the overall end product (you).

However, we do know that alterations in protein can have differing effects both beneficial and detrimental.

Using that knowledge, that we don't know everything there is to know about protein folding and function, it is very easy to not only note, but take note of the fact that alteration of DNA through mutation can have drastic effects on phenotype and biochemistry.

And it doesn't take much; which is why "microevolution" is a model for "macroevolution." The understanding of the first is a foundation for the latter.

Organism A, through genetic recombination with Organism B produces Organism C which is different phenotypically and reproductively. It survives, and over time, it becomes so different in patterns of behavior and reproduction that it becomes isolated and becomes a different species. You now have "macroevolution" from a single "micro" event.

Population genetics is the cornerstone of evolution. It does not run contrary by any stretch of the imagination. This is why so many of the principals of genetics are integrated into evolution. Statements otherwise, especially with no backing, are rather ludicrous.

"Descent" is a very interesting and even agreeable word. Yes. I believe that man was created pristine... perfect... genetically and otherwise. Since the fall, man has "descended". Populations have been isolated and favored certain genetic traits... neanderthal for example. ALL were still human and descendants of a prototype that was more genetically robust than any of his descendants.

I do not believe nor does the real, material evidence show that man "descended" from anything other than another man.

Funny, because genome studies disagree with the statement on Neanderthal.

Quick excerpt from Time on the article:

The gene flow of Neanderthal DNA into early human DNA was found in only one direction: from Neanderthals to us. The study found no early modern human DNA in the Neanderthal genome.

I believe that the original "cat" was a direct creation and had all the genetic information needed for every variation of cat that now exists or ever did exists.

So, how exactly did "supercat" determine what its offspring was going to be? Did Supercat A and Supercat B mate and decide that Supercat Jr was going to be a Tabby, but Supercat III was going to be Siamese?

Or did supercat just give birth to two of each, and in the process, knocked out all the genetic information necessary to move from one to the other, all the while reducing and altering the total size of each individual genome and number of proteins for each varying specie?

Smart supercat. Wonder if it was house trained?

I believe the speciation from that type occurred as populations were acted upon by natural selection, mutation, and deletions. A tiger for instance no longer carries the functional dna to be breed into a house cat and vice versa... but they had an ancestor that had the dna to give rise to both.

You do know that this is macroevolution, right? And you do know that that does nothing to explain how Supercat was able to branch off all its counterparts from its supercat DNA.

And how do you propose such a mechanism by which a single, perfect genome was able to be stripped down to the hundreds of differing genomes that compromise all the other species of feline? It must have been one heck of a biological maneuver to pick and choose only those areas of DNA it wished to copy from the original.

Macroevolution demands that there is some mechanism by which the information that makes us different from amoeba has been added over time by natural processes. The processes of mutation, deletion, and natural selection are moving genomes in the opposite direction.

Macroevolution does not demand that information is added over time, it is merely logical that information starts small and moves toward larger. Macroevolution is change over time at the level of the specie or above. It can occur relatively quickly, or require long periods of time. It can be compounded by "microevolution" (which can also produce speciation).

It does not mean what you think it means.

 

[therealUT]

I simply skimmed this article; however, is someone in here actually arguing against natural selection?

On what grounds?

 

[sjt18]

I don't know that there is anything about evolution that removes the possibility of a creator, to be honest.

True.

But that's not really the point. It isn't possible for there to be anything that could disprove there is a creator at some level. That in no way indicates that there is one.

Evolutionary theory is so fluid and open ended and in some cases purely speculative that the same thing applies.

I have heard the "God is not falsifiable" argument before. But the fact is that pre-historic history is not "falsifiable" in the strictest sense either.

Belief that things arrived where they are by purely natural processes that were not observed occurring and in many cases cannot be reproduced or observed now is just as much a matter of faith and presupposition as believing a Creator did it.

I have no problem admitting that I presuppose a supernatural view of reality where both spiritual and physical... immaterial and material... are "real". As you know, the thing that I stick on with evolutionists/naturalists most of the time is they will not admit that they start from a presupposition that like a belief in God cannot be proven.

 

[sjt18]

I wouldn't say my objection is religious at all. "Rational" comes to mind, but that's a hopelessly biased term. So I'll say philosophical.

I actually like you... and certainly appreciate that acknowledgement.

Even still, you are working backwards trying to find ways for God to fit into our observations. That isn't the same as just making observations.

Funny. That's the exact same objection I have with evolutionists. The fossil record we discussed earlier is a prime example.

Some argue that science always has a presupposition, but in it's pure form it does not.

I agree. However I do not agree that philosophical naturalism is the necessary premise for "science".

It is merely a process of studying phenomena. The only reason why we live in a time with the kinds of debates we have about religion is because our observations about the universe and world do not match what we were told for thousands of years by various religions.

And in many cases they do not match what we were told for decades by evolutionists... Major things too. "Science" once insisted that the universe was static with no beginning or end. Darwin's finches are so ingrained that float tried to use them as positive proof for evolution here. I believe most evolutionists acknowledge that they are not a proof of macroevolution but simply adaptation.

Darwin suggested a black box for dna that would be relatively easy to change without limits. He was wrong. Numerous fossils have been misunderstood. Times have been radically off. Species thought to be extinct for millions of years have popped up quite alive and well.

We were told that dinosaurs died off 60 million years ago and that soft tissue could last well less than that... and a T-Rex bone was found with soft tissue just a few years ago.

How about Haeckel drawings, Miller Urey, or the famous horse morph? All still appear in text books as proofs or illustrations of evolution. All have been discarded by "science" as false or even fraudulent.

In the modern day, many religions are now trying to hybridize and adapt what they say about the universe and world with what has been observed. It's hard to not be cynical about that, as clearly there is not some mystical or magical infallibility about religions, and clearly if there is a God or gods, He/they don't give a flip if we are operating under false information, at least not enough to set the record straight.

I disagree that God is responsible when men attempt to speak beyond what He chose to reveal. I agree that it is difficult not to be cynical about "religion".

BTW, you have probably accepted things as "observed" that really aren't. The age of the earth or universe is not "observed"... it is calculated based on some tangible evidence but then a whole host of assumptions. The most critical assumption is that there was no creative force greater than nature itself involved.

 

[sjt18]

http://www.volnation.com/forum/pub/117001-religion-overrated-47.html#post4430185

Read and note the date.

Nice. Thank you.

Now, as to the "miracle" that gives rise to "higher species," why is "macroevolution" so impossible whereas "micro" is so plausible in your mind?

Microevolution/adaptation is observable. It "does" certain things by certain mechanisms. It can be reproduced in experiment. It has NEVER under any set of circumstances provided the novel information and dna required to evolve an amoeba into a man... or a fish into an amphibian... or any of a number of lower forms into the higher forms that evolution claims.

As I stated ad nauseum before... the direction of microevolution is in the opposite direction that macro requires.

There IS a dichotomy between micro and macro evolution.

If you saw a four winged fly, would you think it a different specie from a two winged fly? Would you think the four winged fly was "higher" than the two winged fly?

No. But I would not discount the notion that both were descended from a single fly that indeed was "higher" genetically speaking than either. Evolution says that life started simple and evolved into more complex and genetically robust forms. Creation says it started with "kinds" of animals that were very robust and descended into more "simple" forms as mutations and deletions cut function/expressions.

Furthermore, what do you consider "higher" and "lower?" Are you a "higher" species than a dog? Or just "higher" than an ant?

I would say the original cat type was "higher" than the current cat types. I struggle to answer your question beyond that since I don't believe that man ascended from a single cell organism... If I did then I would certainly say that man was higher than his supposed amoeba ancestor. He is functionally and genetically more complex by many degrees.

We do not know through experimentation that genomes have "boundaries" that cannot be crossed, except that there may be issue with genomes that are too large for replication and cell size requirement. And even that isn't exactly true, because we don't know what that size is yet.

Yes. We really do. Millions of generations of fruit flies have come and gone in attempts to make them evolve into somethng other than a fruit fly. Breeding doesn't work. Exposure to environmental or chemicals doesn't work. A fruit fly can be mutated to a certain point.... then it dies.

So please elaborate as to the "boundaries" of the genome.

Animals can adapt in a certain direction to a certain point... they then cannot go further. The information is not in their genes or genome... and there is no adequate source for novel information that pushes them further.

We do not know how all of them work, how they fold or even how various changes in many of them affect the overall end product (you).

We do know that almost all mutations are detrimental or deleterious. We know that we cannot observe or "make" mutations that make a fruit fly into something else.

And it doesn't take much; which is why "microevolution" is a model for "macroevolution." The understanding of the first is a foundation for the latter.

No. It simply isn't and you are talking in circles.

Organism A, through genetic recombination with Organism B produces Organism C which is different phenotypically and reproductively. It survives, and over time, it becomes so different in patterns of behavior and reproduction that it becomes isolated and becomes a different species. You now have "macroevolution" from a single "micro" event.

Do you have a real world example outside of bacteria of this occurring or perhaps an experimental proof? Even within bacteria do you have an example of something being produced that isn't "bacteria"?

Population genetics is the cornerstone of evolution. It does not run contrary by any stretch of the imagination. This is why so many of the principals of genetics are integrated into evolution. Statements otherwise, especially with no backing, are rather ludicrous.

You can believe whatever you like. You "saying so" isn't convincing and I am tired of repeating that the current populations are headed toward ultimate extinction by the mechanisms that evolutionists claim caused very simple life to evolve into very complex life.

Funny, because genome studies disagree with the statement on Neanderthal.

You are either being obtuse or missed the point completely. Your excerpt is not relevant to what I said. IIRC, evolutionists agree that Neanderthal and modren man "evolved" from the same ancestor... that's all I said.

So, how exactly did "supercat" determine what its offspring was going to be? Did Supercat A and Supercat B mate and decide that Supercat Jr was going to be a Tabby, but Supercat III was going to be Siamese?

By the same process that any evolutionist would say they did. I am not aware of anyone on either side of this debate that denies that cats descended from a common ancestor.

You do know that this is macroevolution, right? And you do know that that does nothing to explain how Supercat was able to branch off all its counterparts from its supercat DNA.

Nope. It isn't. It would be if the "supercat" were genetically simpler than its descendants. I do not believe it was and believe that is more consistent with observation than the belief that it was.

And how do you propose such a mechanism by which a single, perfect genome was able to be stripped down to the hundreds of differing genomes that compromise all the other species of feline? It must have been one heck of a biological maneuver to pick and choose only those areas of DNA it wished to copy from the original.

Are you reading at all? Mutation, deletion, environment/natural selection. It happened the same way grandpa finch had the genetic info to give one great, great, great,.... grandson a short beak and another a long beak.

Macroevolution does not demand that information is added over time, it is merely logical that information starts small and moves toward larger.

You do realize the contradiction in this statement don't you? If there is no addition of information then no higher animal could have evolved from a simple one cell being.

No. It is NOT logical at ALL to say that genetic information starts small and mover toward larger. That is in direct contradiction to direct observation of living species.

Macroevolution is change over time at the level of the specie or above. It can occur relatively quickly, or require long periods of time. It can be compounded by "microevolution" (which can also produce speciation).

You don't have to prove you read the book... but just because you or the book says so does not mean it "is so". Show me an observation that proves any of what you just said.

It does not mean what you think it means.

Yeah... it pretty much does. You can try all the sophistry you want but the simple fact is that macroevolution does not have a means of providing the information for amoeba to man evolution... and it isn't just creationists who say this. If it did then you wouldn't have guys like Gould proposing punctuated equillibrium to provide the means.

 

[fl0at]

Microevolution/adaptation is observable. It "does" certain things by certain mechanisms. It can be reproduced in experiment. It has NEVER under any set of circumstances provided the novel information and dna required to evolve an amoeba into a man... or a fish into an amphibian... or any of a number of lower forms into the higher forms that evolution claims.

Are you stating that you have to go instantly from one form to the other? Is that your argument, that unless you can take a fish and *poof* amphibian, in a lab, that you can't have macroevolution? Because, in a lab, you can have speciation and thus "macroevolution."

As I stated ad nauseum before... the direction of microevolution is in the opposite direction that macro requires.

There IS a dichotomy between micro and macro evolution.

Yes, you have stated it, but that does not make it true. Just what do you think "macroevolution" requires that is opposite of "microevolution?"

As the populations change (micro), you can very easily lead to new speciation (macro). There are numerous studies and observations on this very topic.

"Macro" and "micro" often walk hand in hand, and one builds off the other. They are very much birds of the same feather. The issue is at the level at which they operate.

You do understand when I say at or above the specie level, right? Because that is the only difference between the two; the level at which they operate.

No. But I would not discount the notion that both were descended from a single fly that indeed was "higher" genetically speaking than either. Evolution says that life started simple and evolved into more complex and genetically robust forms. Creation says it started with "kinds" of animals that were very robust and descended into more "simple" forms as mutations and deletions cut function/expressions.

I would say the original cat type was "higher" than the current cat types. I struggle to answer your question beyond that since I don't believe that man ascended from a single cell organism... If I did then I would certainly say that man was higher than his supposed amoeba ancestor. He is functionally and genetically more complex by many degrees.

And how do you account for the growing size of DNA, and not the shrinking size? How do you account for more base pairs in DNA of modern animals as opposed to their prehistoric ancestors?

How can the "original" cat have all the genetic information (number of base pairs) necessary for all the other species, and yet the common ancestor has less base pairs?

If the "original" cat carried all the genetic information necessary for all the other cats, how large do you think their genome would be by comparison?

Our genome is about 3.4 billion base pairs in size. Neanderthal is about 3.2 billion base pairs in size. And yet, human specific sequences do not appear in Neanderthal, but Neanderthal sequences do appear in ours.

Yes. We really do. Millions of generations of fruit flies have come and gone in attempts to make them evolve into somethng other than a fruit fly. Breeding doesn't work. Exposure to environmental or chemicals doesn't work. A fruit fly can be mutated to a certain point.... then it dies.

Animals can adapt in a certain direction to a certain point... they then cannot go further. The information is not in their genes or genome... and there is no adequate source for novel information that pushes them further.

You do understand that the goal of most experiments on Dro is not to "turn it into another specie," right? Although, several speciation events have been studied and documented.

You do know how difficult it is to find the right alteration to modify functional protein, or divert wings to another location, or legs to another location, right?

Although, I'd say Dro has made some leaps and bounds the last few years. Here is a good picture of what he could be, if it were beneficial.

We do know that almost all mutations are detrimental or deleterious. We know that we cannot observe or "make" mutations that make a fruit fly into something else.

You consider the above a fruit fly? How about this dude with legs where his antennea should be? Still a fruit fly or "something else?" Useful, nah. The other set of wings, maybe. Furthermore, you do understand that most evolutionary processes are driven by energy needs, of which much isn't being modified. But, time will help. We've come a long way in the last two decades.

No. It simply isn't and you are talking in circles.

Actually, yea, it is. Macroevolution builds off of microevolution, for the most part. The populations evolve (micro) and then the specie (macro) evolve.

It is a progression, not a series of bounds. It is a series of small baby steps (usually). Tiny changes here and there until, well, you have speciation.

Do you have a real world example outside of bacteria of this occurring or perhaps an experimental proof? Even within bacteria do you have an example of something being produced that isn't "bacteria"?

Are you asking me to go instantly from bacteria to a goldfish with absolutely zero intermediates? Or do you want to see speciation, because yea, I have some real world examples.

Angiosperms is the obvious one. Polyplodia creates a hybrid that cannot cross with either parent, but can reproduce with other hybrids, resulting in speciation.

Karpechenko crossed a cabbage and a radish (Raphanobrassica), producing a new specie that was either cabbage or radish (differing genus) but still able to reproduce. Not a cabbage and not a radish, but the best of both worlds.

You can believe whatever you like. You "saying so" isn't convincing and I am tired of repeating that the current populations are headed toward ultimate extinction by the mechanisms that evolutionists claim caused very simple life to evolve into very complex life.

Huh? Darwin was big on extinction, as are many modern evolutionary biologists. Where do you get this believe that extinction is not a part of evolution? It boggles the mind.

For an evolutionary biologist to ignore extinction is probably as foolhardy as for a demographer to ignore mortality

You are either being obtuse or missed the point completely. Your excerpt is not relevant to what I said. IIRC, evolutionists agree that Neanderthal and modren man "evolved" from the same ancestor... that's all I said.

Oh, no, it is very relevant. For you to believe that Neanderthal and human came from the same common ancestor, you wouldn't find Neanderthal specific DNA markers in the human genome.

They didn't come from the same ancestor, which is why we have Neanderthal DNA, but they don't have our DNA.

By the same process that any evolutionist would say they did. I am not aware of anyone on either side of this debate that denies that cats descended from a common ancestor.

No, there is not debate that they descend form a common ancestor. The debate is how you explain, biologically, how the common ancestor had the FULL complement of DNA necessary for all specie of cat that follow.

That is what I want know, and I would love that explanation. I want the explanation as to how the "single perfect cat" managed to cut its genome down into single, new individual species. That is the biology I want to see, and no... that isn't explained by evolutionary theory.

Feel free to use some of the same mechanisms in your explanation, though. It should be interesting.

Nope. It isn't. It would be if the "supercat" were genetically simpler than its descendants. I do not believe it was and believe that is more consistent with observation than the belief that it was.

What definition of macroevolution are you using, pray, tell?

Because, yea, macroevolution is change at the level of the species. If you have changed the original species (supercat) into multiple various species, then you have, by definition changed... at... the... specie... level.

So, please, I beg you, what definition are you incorrectly using here?

Are you reading at all? Mutation, deletion, environment/natural selection. It happened the same way grandpa finch had the genetic info to give one great, great, great,.... grandson a short beak and another a long beak.

Really? Aren't you the one that harped on how mutation leads to dysfunction in very high levels? And you don't think this happens in exactly the reverse?

Why do all the processes necessary for evolution from smaller to larger occur when going from larger to smaller (which would require more energy, longer cellular reproductive periods due to sheer chromosome size of an organism with a genome that is extremely more large than the original?)

And how would you explain progressively increasing sizes of genomes? Wouldn't the opposite be true?

You do realize the contradiction in this statement don't you? If there is no addition of information then no higher animal could have evolved from a simple one cell being.

Again, what definition of macroevolution are you using? It amuses, but here is what that statement means: macroevolution can occur by going from small to large OR large to small and thusly does not demand that information must be added because information can be, instead, removed. However, it is more logical that information is added in order to move from less to more complex, but it is NOT A REQUIREMENT.

So again, what is your definition of macroevolution?

No. It is NOT logical at ALL to say that genetic information starts small and mover toward larger. That is in direct contradiction to direct observation of living species.

Example?

You don't have to prove you read the book... but just because you or the book says so does not mean it "is so". Show me an observation that proves any of what you just said.

Read the book? Brother, this is my field, my interest, my passion. But, sure, here are a few observations for ya, but first, let's define some words:

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted).

So, for your examples, just scroll up to the ones I've already given.

Yeah... it pretty much does. You can try all the sophistry you want but the simple fact is that macroevolution does not have a means of providing the information for amoeba to man evolution... and it isn't just creationists who say this. If it did then you wouldn't have guys like Gould proposing punctuated equillibrium to provide the means.

Again, no, it doesn't. Though you haven't given me your definition, yet, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

How about compare it to the above definition and we'll see if it means what you think it means.

 

[Daddy Gee]

very informative/interesting discussion fellas .. :hi: