Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
False. You have been told this before, but you don't listen. You prefer to rummage around and find something that (miinterpreted) can be made to look like it supports your position
Claim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:
Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
Not sure what you are saying and i was not quoting or referring to any of the above, rather the results of all genetic testing known to me.
Quote:
This is just stating a claim that is false because it totally misrepresents evolution. You KNOW that natural selection is the mechanism behind 'Micro' evolution (and breeding - human use of the mechanism to suit themselves), yet you ignore that 'Macro' as it is called is just the same. You then drag in this irrelevant stuff about "Kinds" simply because it is Creationist dogma. It has no place in science.
No Micro and macro are vastly different, but those who believe in Evolution cannot admit it or ... they have nothing to show any level of evolution.
Quote:
You bods really are crafty. The Bible says that all the kinds of animals and such were created. And then you creationists add on all sorts of misrepresented and misunderstood science to try to make it refute evolution -theory, and then pretend that the Bible says it. (I needn't labour the crafty attempt to make all Christians think they have to buy Creationism too). Simply repeating your false idea of what speciation is - and I know that you misuse the 'cannot turn dogs into cats' argument to back it up - proves nothing.
Those who believe in Evolution want to use their definitions. I use a simple and clear one and one that stands up to all tests. A "Kind" is one that can reproduce with others of that "Kind" and not with those of another Kind. Dead simple as all dogs can breed with dogs and not cats and there is no cross between a dog and a cat.
Quote:
The claim that mutations (in a particular species or individual) is always deleterious is quite wrong as is your creationists dogma -statement 'not a true or lasting benefit'. The half -truth that species are invented by science to conveniently categorize where a line of evolution is at this time is misrepresented (in a self -contradictory way, now I come to look at it) as a fixed "Kind" that can never change beyond that 'Kind' - and you just dismiss the masses of evidence that this often did happen.
Again a misrepresentation. I said that while "a" mutation (one or more) may be beneficial the resulting mutated thing is less viable overall than the original. Wolves can be mutated into Dachshunds, but the wolf is still better adapted to life than the mutation, even of the mutation allows it to do somethings a wolf can't.Please address what I actually say, not twist it. Please provide any actual DNA evidence any Kind has changed? Link to evidence, etc. None provided yet, just hot air.
Quote:
Again, look at the evidence that actually exists and stop demanding evidence of interbreeding between different species which YOU KNOW is not what evolution (micro) is doing and you KNOW that species interbreeding is nothing to do with it. Sorry to shout in capitals but you are asking the same questions that have been answered again and again and you keep saying the same false argument.
Again micro Evolution exists and Macro does not. Please provide any evidence of macro with a link to the evidence. I keep asking and everyone keeps dodging it.
Quote:
predictable dismissal of anything you don't want to hear.
You give yourself away. Clearly this Wollf IS a YE Creationist but you try to cover that up with the usual reference to scientific credentials - as though that excused him from the inherent bias of Creationism. In fact we know very well that scientists who are creationists use two mental systems - the science for their job and the nonsense for their Faith -based creationism.
Again your bias and refusal to actually address what is. Wolf is a friend of mine and is NOT a Young Earth Creationists and neither am I. Again a dodge to avoid the evdience question.
Quote:
Sending me off to do your research for you, are you What good would it do when you get YE Creation site mental cut and paste tosh about Kinds, self deception about what Evolution actually claims, and irrelevant argument from species interbreeding - not to mention demonstrably false claims about mutation and doubtless say the same - that you have found no-one who can refute them. The fact is that you have found no -one who can make you listen.
Dodging it because you have no evidence you have just been told it happened and given some speculatory examples with ... no scientific evidence. Then turn to the YEC argument, which has nothing to do with my position or science.
Quote:
I may in fact have a look at the argument that Wolf makes. I don't doubt they are the usual false creationist claims we are familiar with. And I don't doubt the usual response - "atheist scientists refuse to listen to him; a science -dogma Conspiracy to keep his papers from being published". It is thought provoking to realize that everything that Creationists accuse "Us" of is what they would do themselves, if they ran the show.
Please do and I will look for a link with an English translation, which I believe exists. No one to date has been able to refute it.
Quote:
By the way, I am still waiting for any scientific evidence for creation. No . I don't mean fiddling up objections to evolution theory (1) based on misunderstanding and misrepresentation, but some scientific evidence For creation.
(1) which includes the debunked ID, Polonium haloes and Polystrates.
DNA is the evidence. It can be mutated, changed to a degree, manipulated, but it has never been changed to produce anything completely new at all and all the evidence is that a new "Kind" is impossible through mutation.Go back to Mendelson's fruit fly mutation effort and you will see the same results that all such tests since have produced. You keep claiming it can be and has, but you have not yet provide any link with scientific evidence. The one link you did supply was full of the usual speculatory statements as I pointed out.
But I am patient and will wait to see if you can drop the personal attacks, twisted presentation of what I have said and actually provide evdience, not just claim it exists. A very common position from those believing in the myth of macro Evolution.
We use the same definitions for classifying groups as was set out by Linesus who designed the binomial nomenclature in the 1700s which is 60 years prior to Darwin. Creationist often throw out jabs at people who accept science but they fall short because of things like this. Biology defines and classifies life groups, geology defines rock types, geomorphology defines landforms, chemistry defines elements. Using biological definitions in biology just seems the right thing to do regardless evolution is correct or not. Linesus was not a believer in evolution but he was a taxonomist.
The 8n formation you ask for is 8n books, you just have to be willing to read them. Making a bunch of declarations and asking for them to be reputed is a waste of time, your objections to evolution are on the Web as are the debunking of them. The ,ore of your posts I read the more I think you need to learn the basics and that is up to you not to ud.
Not sure what you are saying and i was not quoting or referring to any of the above, rather the results of all genetic testing known to me.
Well, read it and the link again. It is pretty clear. It refutes your claim about mutations always being deleterious.
Quote:
No Micro and macro are vastly different, but those who believe in Evolution cannot admit it or ... they have nothing to show any level of evolution.
They are the same. There is no genetic difference. The only difference is time.
Quote:
Those who believe in Evolution want to use their definitions. I use a simple and clear one and one that stands up to all tests. A "Kind" is one that can reproduce with others of that "Kind" and not with those of another Kind. Dead simple as all dogs can breed with dogs and not cats and there is no cross between a dog and a cat.
Then you are using a definition of evolution that has nothing to do with scientific biological evolution and does not work because you say "Evolution" (in your definition) does not work. Can't you see how how absurd is what you are saying?
Quote:
Again a misrepresentation. I said that while "a" mutation (one or more) may be beneficial the resulting mutated thing is less viable overall than the original. Wolves can be mutated into Dachshunds, but the wolf is still better adapted to life than the mutation, even of the mutation allows it to do somethings a wolf can't.Please address what I actually say, not twist it. Please provide any actual DNA evidence any Kind has changed? Link to evidence, etc. None provided yet, just hot air.
Even that is incorrect. There is no case that an evolved critter (and let's say in micro -evolution) is any less viable that what it evolved from. In fact it is more viable because it is better adapted. Your examples of breeding are irrelevant because they are bred - using mutations -by humans to do a particular job, not to be better adapted to natural conditions. The forced breeding can indeed cause problems, but the natural evolutionary changes don't have the problems associated with artificial breeding.
In fact there certainly should be DNA changes reflecting speciation. I'll have a look.
Quote:
Again micro Evolution exists and Macro does not. Please provide any evidence of macro with a link to the evidence. I keep asking and everyone keeps dodging it.
It is the same. What is the matter with you? I have given the evidence - repeatedly - and you simply ignore it. The morphology of cetans and birds proves it even without the fossil evidence. Tikataalik and "Lucy" and the DNA links back this up. All the evidence supports evolution and none of it supports creation. Perhaps the problem is that you insist of using a definition of evolution that isn't anything to do with evolution.
And I am still waiting for you to produce scientific evidence of Creation
Quote:
Again your bias and refusal to actually address what is. Wolf is a friend of mine and is NOT a Young Earth Creationists and neither am I. Again a dodge to avoid the evidence question.
Indeed? I shall keep that in mind. If I find that you actually are a YE Creationist, I shall have your guts for garters. So your objection is just to evolution theory. So how do you think species originated?
Quote:
Dodging it because you have no evidence you have just been told it happened and given some speculatory examples with ... no scientific evidence. Then turn to the YEC argument, which has nothing to do with my position or science.
As usual, get personal as a pretext for ignoring the evidence presented and the refutation of your claims about evolution and genetics.
Quote:
Please do and I will look for a link with an English translation, which I believe exists. No one to date has been able to refute it.
Quote:
DNA is the evidence. It can be mutated, changed to a degree, manipulated, but it has never been changed to produce anything completely new at all and all the evidence is that a new "Kind" is impossible through mutation.Go back to Mendelson's fruit fly mutation effort and you will see the same results that all such tests since have produced. You keep claiming it can be and has, but you have not yet provide any link with scientific evidence. The one link you did supply was full of the usual speculatory statements as I pointed out.
You pointed out nothing of the kind. You said:"Not sure what you are saying and i was not quoting or referring to any of the above, rather the results of all genetic testing known to me." And I have posted on this question of producing speciation in a laboratory. It has been done but is denied because it is still a similar enough form to be called the same 'Kind' Just as Eohippus is called the same 'Kind' as a horse. I also explained why the pushing of the speciation would get us no change with creationists.
Quote:
But I am patient and will wait to see if you can drop the personal attacks, twisted presentation of what I have said and actually provide evdience, not just claim it exists. A very common position from those believing in the myth of macro Evolution.
"actual DNA evidence any Kind has changed? Link to evidence, etc. None provided yet, just hot air." Indeed? Yet you clearly know that I HAVE provided good evidence of "Macro" evolution because you are now changing the terms to DNA evidence of "Macro" evolution. Which you know has noting to do with morphophology or fossils. But even that evidence is presented as you dismissed that as 'just common DNA'
Quote:
But I am patient.
You would be, because you have nicely got the position of demanding evidence of evolution and just dismissing it out of hand and claiming this proves it false. It doesn't. YOU have to prove that. And your arguments against evolution are nothing actually related to evolution. You are definitely getting personal while I was refuting your position, presenting the evidence for the umpteenth time and showing that your genetic arguments were false and - by your own admission - YOUR definition of evolution is NOTHING to do with evolution as defined by biology and does not work - by your own definition. can't you see that it is absolutely useless, futile and pointless to even discuss your definition of evolution?
But you use this fantasy definition of evolution to apply to actual evolution and argue that because the fantasy doesn't work (even that isn't true because it is based on false genetic claims about mutations) real evolution can't work. And the only evidence you have is a claim that nobody has produced a different species in the laboratory. In fact that has been done but (as I said) you will still call that the same 'kind'. It is indeed 'speculation' and in fact a false claim that is cannot be done because there is no genetic reason why it cannot be done and you claim that it has not been done because it cannot is simply a rhetorical trick.
I don't really like posting links without an argument or even a quote but there is just so much and it really isn't getting to this idea of DNA evidence of speciation.
As I say it's futile as Expat knows he is safe because we are unlikely to see mutation of a bioform to being an uneniably different 'kind' of critter, let alone publish the chromosomic changes that marked the mutations.
"The divergence of Drosophila pseudoobscura from its close relatives, D. persimilis and D. pseudoobscura bogotana, was examined using the pattern of DNA sequence variation in a common set of 50 inbred lines at 11 loci from diverse locations in the genome."
Yes Creationists don't like the fruit -fly experiments as they are so close to evolution at obseervable speed, so they try to rubbish the results with overdone if not false claims about harmful mutations.
"When reproductive isolation is not complete (i.e., when F1 hybrids are not completely sterile), genes can pass between species. Therefore, incipient or hybridizing species may exchange genes and share genetic variation."
which should address a possible objection that such mutations are always harmful This is not even true in the lab test, never mind in natural conditions. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/4/472.full
P.s DNA evidence that any kind has changed. I was looking for actual chromosomic changes linked to a genetic/evolutionary change in a bioform, for instance done in a laboratory. That is proving hard to get. Because I am no expert here. I have seen information about tinkering with Chromosomic triggers to bring about genetic changes, but am finding it hard to track down.
The historical or trace evidence for speciation is easy to find but I already know that Expat dismisses it. #288 " absolutely no proof beyond all living things having some DNA in common exists." The comparison of the DNA similarities exactly fits and confirms the evolutionary tree, and this is just ignored with the dismissive 'some DNA in common'.
I will post a link or two relating to the DNA evidence for speciation of the 'macro' kind, just for completeness, but the stuff about chromosomic fusion or Polyploids is harder to get a line on. And would be dismissed as 'Micro' evolution anyway.
Pps
The DNA was analysed from a small wolf bone found by Dr Dalen on the Taimyr Peninsula in northern Siberia which was radiocarbon dated to be 35,000 years old. His lab specialises in being able to piece together the DNA of ancient specimens. Dr Dalen and his team were able to identify the rough genetic code of the animal and to their surprise they discovered that its DNA was half way in between dogs and wolves. The results suggest that the split between dogs and wolves happened a few thousand years later.
Ok that isn't a scientific paper but the link can be followed up.
So where did dogs come from? Darwin thought they might come from multiple sources, including the wolf, jackal and coyote, thereby in part explaining their diversity. The DNA evidence, however, shows that they are all derived from the wolf. DNA from all dogs is over 99% identical to that of a wolf, while the wolf and coyote DNAs, for example, are over 4% different from each other. This means, surprisingly, that all of the diversity of dog types in the world today came from a single source, the wolf.
This is contesting this idea - if i get it correctly Sorry. I am not going to waste money on buying a book arguing that what is a fact isn't a fact - especially if Expat's ideas of what Evolution is are reflected in the book by a mate of his and he has been peddling from way back
No wonder he got so shirty at the posted expose of them as group of anti evolutionsists who are shaid to have a YE Creationist agenda. Looking back at Expat's posts, his espousal of Noah and following God's laws suggests that he is.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-03-2015 at 04:46 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
predictable dismissal of anything you don't want to hear.
What good would it do when you get YE Creation site mental cut and paste tosh about Kinds, self deception about what Evolution actually claims, and irrelevant argument from species interbreeding - not to mention demonstrably false claims about mutation and doubtless say the same - that you have found no-one who can refute them. The fact is that you have found no -one who can make you listen.
