"1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin"

[tas8831]

And you do... so how would you account for the 10,000 changes in telomeres in a short period of evolution (primates to humans)?

A deletion event that spread through the population via genetic drift.

 

[tas8831]

And... how do you account for the 10,000 telomere difference during rapid evolution--primates to humans?

Rapid evolution - like the rapid evolution required by YECism to get 1000+ species of bat from the breeding pair-Kind on the ark in only a few thousand years with nobody noticing?

 

[tas8831]

Chirality - severely (to a near-infinite order of magnitude without counter-factors) limits how base substances may combine to form life building blocks.

More of the 'arguing with big numbers' gambit. Funny stuff, Professor.

Mineral Surfaces, Geochemical Complexities, and the Origins of Life

Abstract
Crystalline surfaces of common rock-forming minerals are likely to have played several important roles in life’s geochemical origins. Transition metal sulfides and oxides promote a variety of organic reactions, including nitrogen reduction, hydroformylation, amination, and Fischer-Tropsch-type synthesis. Fine-grained clay minerals and hydroxides facilitate lipid self-organization and condensation polymerization reactions, notably of RNA monomers. Surfaces of common rock-forming oxides, silicates, and carbonates select and concentrate specific amino acids, sugars, and other molecular species, while potentially enhancing their thermal stabilities. Chiral surfaces of these minerals also have been shown to separate left- and right-handed molecules. Thus, mineral surfaces may have contributed centrally to the linked prebiotic problems of containment and organization by promoting the transition from a dilute prebiotic “soup” to highly ordered local domains of key biomolecules.​

Can you provide some citations or links to creation-science in which the actual claims of creationists are being investigated? Like maybe the research into how Yahweh transformed silicates into polynucleotides via breathing?

 

[tas8831]

What is it that you want admitted?

Duh - "that natural selection can mostly affect macro changes, not DNA conjoining and DNA base information!"

He wants us to admit to something that no evolutionary biologist (and no geneticist, nor any biologist in history) has even claimed int he first place.

I am curious as to what the professor means by "conjoining" - does he mean dimerization? I don;t think he even knows.

 

[tas8831]

You want evidence that the macro environment CANNOT control random mutations at the DNA level? Random mutations that are later selected/variegated into the population? I think there's something flawed in your "reasoning".

So no, you cannot support your assertion.

After all, the above bafflegab does even attempt to explain or support your naive gibberish:

"No, but I'd like evolutionists to admit that natural selection can mostly affect macro changes, not DNA conjoining and DNA base information!"

1. WHAT is a 'macrochange'?
2. WHAT is "DNA conjoining"?
3. WHAT is "DNA base information"?

 

[Wu Wei]

Pardon my intrusion, but this has been bugging me since I saw the title of this thread

"1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin"

Based on the number of scientists in the world, which is roughly 7,000,000. That would be only
0.01429 % of all Scientists

Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest, did not mean to interrupt

 

[tas8831]

I do not lie.

I'm more logical (IMHO) than any skeptic, since the Bible says skeptics are deceived, their logic confounded.

The bible also says bats are birds and a human was made from dirt.

Stop being patronizing, I have the right to ask questions on subjects where I lack knowledge,

And yet, you pretend to HAVE the knowledge so as to ask evolution-busting questions in the first place, despite it being very clear to all with legitimate knowledge in these areas that you are spectacularly clueless.

Your telomere bit? Your appendix bit?

I mean, seriously dude - grow some friggin' humility and admit that you are just so wrapped up in your cult-like faith that you will do and say anything to attack those not in your cult.

That is what I am seeing.

and typically answer skeptics Socratically, via sincere questions!

Sincerely naive and uninformed.

"And... how do you account for the 10,000 telomere difference during rapid evolution--primates to humans?"

I mean.... wow... 'Socratic'? What a laugh.

 

[tas8831]

At the start the genomes were more perfect.

Evidence for this bold proclamation? You never presented any in the past 2 years, but maybe by now you actually have some?

they contained more variation and possibilities within them.

And how was this variation 'stored'? How was it suppressed? Or were Adam and his clone both short and tall, thin and fat, light and dark, dim and bright, all at once?

Over the years along with mutations destroying the genome making large portions dysfunctional or deleting them, less and less variation is available over time.

Less and less variation producing more and more variety - like the dog breeds you invoke? You are unintentionally hilarious.

Remember. A mutation is a copy error. It is taking what "already exists" and simply writing it into a new format.

No, this is not at all what a mutation is.
Amazing how much time I and many others have wasted over the years trying to explain to you basic, high school-level genetics and biology to you, only to see you making the same dopey assertions all over again.

The same possibility that "already exists" within the genome. It is not creating anything new. It is simply doing the same thing mating does to hundreds of loci at once, except to only one loci at a time.

You never did explain or provide evidence that mating alters alleles. Because it doesn't, but how would you know?

.... Hence their belief in millions of years. Yet an Asian mating with an African produces an Afro-Asian in nine months. New variation within the species....

Where did the Asian and the African come from in the first place?

You have to start from the correct staring point to understand what we see. Not from simple to more complex.... but from more complex to simpler.....

Cool story, bro.

Can't wait for you to ever produce actual evidence for any of it.

A few gems from 2017 on another forum:

That “new” information they speak of, the possibility it can already occur is already in the genome. Mutations are copy errors. They take what already exists and simply arrange it in a new format. Nothing novel was created. Only what already exists was written in a different format, that possibility already existing within the genome to begin with.​

Amazing insights. No evidence at all, but still amazing.

But I don't get what the different "formats" are supposed to be? A DNA sequence is a DNA sequence, they are not in different formats.

If you have 26 letters of the alphabet, all words, and every word you can possibly imagine in the future is already a possibility. You may have never seen that word before, but it’s possibility already existed. It is not a new word, just one you have never seen before. There is a vast difference between what they are trying to imply and reality.​

Ah - there is the genius of the novice.
Clueless, absurd, uninformed, Dunning-Kruger effect to the max - but genius, nonetheless.

By the way folks - save yourself some time and just search for his antics. Chances are near 100% that his absurd angry assertions have been made and refuted already at christianforums.com. it is all there - Asian gives birth to Asian! Mastiff Husky! The Grants! New alleles are formed via mating! Amazing stuff...



"Except in a court of law the genomes are compared side by side, loci by loci, not by matching by algorithms."

Amazing....

 

[Polymath257]

Amazing how much time I and many others have wasted over the years trying to explain to you basic, high school-level genetics and biology to you, only to see you making the same dopey assertions all over again.

Don't worry. He does the same in physics.

 

[BilliardsBall]

here are 39 steps with more to follow. I will answer questions:

Systematic Classification of Life - YouTube

No I said show steps, not steps of phylogeny between complete things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I said show steps, not steps of phylogeny between complete things.

Don't complain, it is far more than you have ever done.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So I guess this is the 'calculation' you were referring to? Yo've made 110 posts in this thread as of 9 am Sunday morning - I am not going to go through all of them, so I limited the search to those with the number '300' in them, since that seemed relevant to you. That limited the number of posts to 6, and this one was the only one of those six with something like an equation in it. If you had another one in mind, I am all ears.

Human mutation rate revealed : Nature News
"Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome."


https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/why-microbes-are-better-people-keeping-dna-mutations-bay
"Every newborn's DNA carries more than 60 new mutations..."
"That has enabled researchers to measure mutation rates in about 40 species, including newly reported numbers for orangutans, gorillas, and green African monkeys. The primates have mutation rates similar to humans..."


Mutation and Human Exceptionalism: Our Future Genetic Load
"Thus, keeping in mind that some mutations in repetitive DNA likely go undetected owing to mapping difficulties in genome-sequencing projects, with a diploid genome size of ∼  6 billion bases, an average newborn contains ∼  100 de novo mutations."


That was SO HARD for me to find - I had to totally type the question 'how many new mutations per generation in each new human' into the Google, and then I had to, like READ half of the first page of returns to find several examples of answers in the literature!!! So hard - I guess you don't teach students to like, look things up at your 'college'?

What is your educational/experiential background in genetics?
You seem to have the standard non-scientist, non-geneticist creationist view on this topic - in awe of the big numbers - I've seen it all before. Creationists good at things like computer programming, computer graphics, auto body repair, history, psychology, law, etc. - my gosh, these folks just seem to think that some HUGE number of SPECIFIC mutations had to have occurred to produce any new phenotype that is beneficial to us.

Just like you are implying here.

Let's take a look at your naive creationism in action, point by point:

All we need now is for one of every 9.375 mutations you claim by your math to:​

Why do you think that such a constant supply of beneficial mutations would have been required?
What is you understanding of the effects of mutant alleles?
I once read where a creationist claimed that it would take more than a million beneficial mutations just to get obligate bipedality! This is absurd on its face, yet this creationist was convinced he was totally right - he had his own website, of course, so how could he be wrong? Yet, when asked for some examples of the sorts of effects he expected some of these million mutations to have on the anatomy involved in locomotion, he had nothing to say, because he was not only ignorant of the relevant anatomy, he was ignorant of the way genes work. But he was still totally convinced that it had to be a million. Because numbers.

My point is, to the layman, it may seem that because genomes are big, there must be a lot of changes that are required to alter phenotype.

And I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. There is NO 1-to-1 relationship between any mutation and any non-lethal phenotype. I am aware of a single point mutation in a receptor gene causing dwarfism, and I am also aware that it is looking like dozens of genes or more were involved in altering the size of the primate neocortex.

But let's continue...

* Enhance survivability​

What does that mean? What would it entail? Would making it easier to digest lactose enhance survivability? If so, that is a 1 gene deal. Would having bigger muscles? That, too, is linked to mutations in a single gene. Would having the neurlogical ability to cause the release of bacteria from the appendix of those animals that have one require some suite of beneficial mutations that those animals without an appendix didn't seem to need? Just kidding - there is no such thing as neurolgical control of bacterial release. That is foolish.
You will need to do better than some bland, naive assertion.

* Take the species forward/alter DNA, without killing the species​

Any 2 humans differ by about ~80 million bps. All without killing the species of some 7 billion.
I think you can safely stop using this line of 'reasoning' as some kind of 'argument.'

* Spread throughout the entire population of 1,000,000, since all 32 million changes are required to forward the species, etc.​

Ah, there is that classic linear thinking of the creationist again. You probably also think that the question "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" is like a totally great gotcha.

You see, evolution is a phenomenon of populations. Not all members of a population will necessarily be in possession of any particular suite of mutations, beneficial or otherwise, at any given time. Wait long enough, go through a sufficient number of generations (which will vary depending on things like strength of selection, population size, etc.), and what we get out of the other end, in your hypothetical scenario, is a population that will be in possession of all of those mutations (in this scenario, any way).

I get the feeling that creationists believe that evolutionists go about science the same way they do, and that is why they are so dismissive and skeptical.

My sincere hope for you:

1) You currently find wasting time posting to me various ramblings, while avoiding actually addressing my points, cathartic, so you can be less abominable toward the precious students in your care

2) You will find peace and comfort, losing the anger--perhaps a stiff drink and a cigarette are in order

 

[Subduction Zone]

My sincere hope for you:

1) You currently find wasting time posting to me various ramblings, while avoiding actually addressing my points, cathartic, so you can be less abominable toward the precious students in your care

2) You will find peace and comfort, losing the anger--perhaps a stiff drink and a cigarette are in order

So you cannot support your claims, you ignore your gross error where you misstated the math that I did for you, and this is the best that you can do?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My sincere hope for you:

1) You currently find wasting time posting to me various ramblings, while avoiding actually addressing my points, cathartic, so you can be less abominable toward the precious students in your care

2) You will find peace and comfort, losing the anger--perhaps a stiff drink and a cigarette are in order

So you cannot support your claims, you ignore your gross error where you misstated the math that I did for you, and this is the best that you can do?

 

[tas8831]

My sincere hope for you:

1) You currently find wasting time posting to me various ramblings, while avoiding actually addressing my points,

Says the guy with the embellished educational background that 'explained' his claims by shifting the burden to me - Klassic Kreationist Komedy!

2) You will find peace and comfort, losing the anger--perhaps a stiff drink and a cigarette are in order

So precious how the guy claiming 3 degrees cannot even provide support for his claims - likely because he couldn't find anything to copy-paste from his creationist handlers' websites..

Your poor students - they are getting a substandard education and your employer wasted their money on a hack with a dopey agenda to push that suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

My conclusion is that you are just a run of the mill under-informed creationist zealot that cannot recognize his own intellectual limitations and lashes out at those that expose the same.

Neurological control for the 'release' of bacteria from the appendix - that is probably one of the stupidest things I have ever heard!

Know your place, or I will delight in continuing to put you in it.

 

[tas8831]

So you cannot support your claims, you ignore your gross error where you misstated the math that I did for you, and this is the best that you can do?

Yes, yes it is.

I don't think he even understands what evolution is, much less anything about mutation rates, genetics, etc. He is in so far over his head that he cannot tell up from down, but all the while convinces himself that he is winning. Typical religious crackpot.

 

[tas8831]

You have a source for 100 mutations per every individual per generation? You have a source for 100 mutations passed to the next generation? (You don't, these are binary pair matings between primates).

Look at what this genius ignored:

Human mutation rate revealed : Nature News
"Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome."


https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/why-microbes-are-better-people-keeping-dna-mutations-bay
"Every newborn's DNA carries more than 60 new mutations..."
"That has enabled researchers to measure mutation rates in about 40 species, including newly reported numbers for orangutans, gorillas, and green African monkeys. The primates have mutation rates similar to humans..."


Mutation and Human Exceptionalism: Our Future Genetic Load
"Thus, keeping in mind that some mutations in repetitive DNA likely go undetected owing to mapping difficulties in genome-sequencing projects, with a diploid genome size of ∼  6 billion bases, an average newborn contains ∼  100 de novo mutations."


That was SO HARD for me to find - I had to totally type the question 'how many new mutations per generation in each new human' into the Google, and then I had to, like READ half of the first page of returns to find several examples of answers in the literature!!! So hard - I guess you don't teach students to like, look things up at your 'college'?​

Wow - poor egotist just cannot handle being proved WRONG yet again. A rational, humble person would simply admit error and move on.

But not the CREATIONIST! Oh no - they are on a Mission for Jehovah! Admitting error on ANYTHING is against their true religion - pride!

 

[gnostic]

And... how do you account for the 10,000 telomere difference during rapid evolution--primates to humans?

You are kidding me!

A short time?!

Turning a lifeless dust instantly to a living adult male human, is a short time. There is a name for such occurrences:

• Miracle
• Supernatural
• Magic
• Myth
• Fairytale

I don’t have problem with this story existing, because I love a good story, but to actually believe such thing in Genesis 2 is possible, only demonstrated that your sense of reality would be like tripping on acid - hallucinations and delusions.

Evolution through natural means, like natural selection, genetic drift or mutations, are by no mean short.

 

[tas8831]

You are kidding me!

A short time?!

Turning a lifeless dust instantly to a living adult male human, is a short time. There is a name for such occurrences:

• Miracle
• Supernatural
• Magic
• Myth
• Fairytale

I don’t have problem with this story existing, because I love a good story, but to actually believe such thing in Genesis 2 is possible, only demonstrated that your sense of reality would be like tripping on acid - hallucinations and delusions.

Evolution through natural means, like natural selection, genetic drift or mutations, are by no mean short.

Funniest/most pathetic thing about this whole telomere shtick is that he seems to think that there are all beneficial mutations or individual point mutations or something. It is amazing to watch.

 

[tas8831]

I suspect that BB's most recent breakdown against me is in part due to the fact that he cannot answer these and needs an out:

So no, you cannot support your assertion.

After all, the above bafflegab does even attempt to explain or support your naive gibberish:

"No, but I'd like evolutionists to admit that natural selection can mostly affect macro changes, not DNA conjoining and DNA base information!"

1. WHAT is a 'macrochange'?
2. WHAT is "DNA conjoining"?
3. WHAT is "DNA base information"?