Creationist - What about Evolution you disagree with?

[Pegg]

And what is his source of this claim? Because it is established fact that for humans there are over 100 mutations per offspring.

As one of his opening premises is demonstrably wrong his results are worthless.

Would you like to try again with a more reliable source?

the information for mutation rates comes from 'Population Genetics and Evolution' L.Mettler, T.Gregy. and H.Schaffer 1988 p.104
&
'Het high fidelity of DNA Duplication' M.Radman and R.Wagner, Scientific American August 1988.

 

[Pegg]

Pegg, he assumes his conclusion. IOW, his calculations rest on the assumption that (for example), the eye was desired or intended, rather than just what we happened to end up with. If we had ended up with radar-emitting antenna instead of eyes, he would still be saying they were "intended" or "desired" and using the same calculations.

as with all evolution, there is a lot of assumptions and speculation because it cannot be known for sure. The events being studied occurred in the past and its not like we can go back there to verify it. No one knows the rates at which mutations occur or the order and magnitude of them...yet the assumed conclusion that evolutionists make is simply that they evolved

Also, probability calculations, though adored by creationists, are fundamentally flawed. This is because in order to calculate probability you need to know the exact number of possible mutations, the exact impact of each mutation on the reproductive success of every single organism in the universe, living and dead, accounting for their exact environmental circumstances, and an endless number of other factors. IOW, anyone who tells you they have "calculated" the exact probability of an eyeball is a charlatan, a madman or a fool.

and the same goes for anyone who claims that the eyeball evolved...without all the facts of how such changes could have occurred, or how such complex organs could develop, they would need a lot more then the assumptions they work with

Also, as he uses the term "random selection" it can be safely assumed he does not understand evolution at all.

that my have been a mistype by me... he's talking about 'random mutations' in this chapter

 

[Skwim]

Now he looks at reality and the statistical probability for convergent evolution...the figures come up quite different when the reality of nature is included in the sum.

"I want to learn the statistical probability that nature will produce independently by random mutations, two structures that are externally similar, although they may use different proteins in their construction. . .

. . . Even more confounding to the traditional logic of evolution, there is no evidence of evolution within the five million year span of the Cambrian explosion. Each animal in this era makes its appearance fully developed.

Here's an interesting critique of Schroeder statistical methods by Graham Oppy.

"The problems raised in this review do no more than gesture at the range of criticisms which one might lodge against Schroeder's book. Leaving many controversial matters untouched, I shall conclude with a couple of observations about Schroeder's treatment of orthodox neo-Darwinian accounts of evolution. Schroeder claims that the kinds of arguments which he gives provide compelling reasons for thinking that the evolution of life was preprogrammed by an intelligent designer. These arguments mostly take the form of calculations which show that certain kinds of complex structures could not have arisen as the result of random events in the time spans available (e.g., that chimpanzees and Cro-Magnon man could not have evolved from a common ancestor as a result of random genetic mutations in seven million years (116-124); that the convergence observed in convergent evolution--e.g., invertebrate and vertebrate eyes--could not have been the result of independent random reactions in the time available (93-4, 101-114); and that the explosion of life at the time of the appearance of liquid water on the surface of the earth could not have been the result of independent random reactions in the brief period of time in which an astonishing diversity of forms of life appeared (29-33, 34-40, 83-94). The kinds of calculations which Schroeder gives are familiar: du Nouy's 1947 calculation of the probability of the spontaneous assemblage of a protein molecule from its constituent atoms is of the same type. Moreover, the kinds of responses which one might make are also well-known. On the one hand--as Schroeder admits--there are various uncertainties in the calculations, which might make the figures slightly unreliable (though there is reason to think that Schroeder's figures are quite conservative). On the other hand--and far more importantly--the obvious conclusion to draw in each case is that mistaken assumptions have been made about the mechanism of evolution. It should not be part of standard evolutionary theory to suppose that the first protein molecule was randomly assembled for its constituent atoms--as Hoyle observed (in a slightly different context), calculations like the one made by du Nouy show that construction of a protein molecule in this way is as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard. But all that is required is some intermediate steps in the passage from atoms to protein (steps which need not all proceed linearly in time, and each of which can be expected to happen in quite small amounts of time with sufficient frequency to make it probable that there will eventually be plenty of protein molecules). Of course, it remains for the evolutionary theorist to give an account of those steps--but there is no reason to suppose that there is any difficulty of principle here. The same kinds of considerations apply to Schroeder's arguments. Given that the early explosion of life on the cool earth cannot be explained according to Darwin's 'warm little pond' hypothesis, evolutionary theorists need to look for some other account. Various suggestions have been made--e.g., Cairns-Smith's clay-based theory and Hoyle's theory of intergalactic origins--though all remain rather speculative. Most recently, there has been considerable interest in the idea that life may have begun deep under the earth's crust, in rather warmer conditions than has thus far been supposed. The crucial point--for present purposes--is that these remain theories in which life starts by chance. None of Schroeder's calculations establish that certain things cannot be the result of chance; at best, they show that some further mechanism remains to be identified which shows how these things can be the result of chance. (Of course, the considerations offered here do not address the cosmic fine-tuning arguments; there, I take it, a quite different response is needed. But that is something which I have discussed elsewhere; I shall not repeat myself here.)

​

And here's an explanation of how "Schroeder attempts to reconcile a young Earth creationist Biblical view with the scientific model of a world that is billions of years old"

"(viii) the theory of relativity explains how the six days of Genesis are in fact fifteen billion earth years (41-71); (ix) difficulties which face standard evolutionary accounts of the origins of life strongly indicate that the evolution of life was preprogrammed by an intelligent designer (83-124); and so on.
​

One crucial part of Schroeder's attempt to reconcile the Bible with recent science involves his claim that the six days of creation mentioned in Genesis are measured from the perspective of the wave frequency of the cosmic microwave background radiation. On his account, day one corresponds to the time between the moment of quark confinement and the formation of the disk of the Milky Way (from 15.75 billion years ago to 7.75 billion years ago); day two corresponds to the time between the formation of the disk of the Milky Way and the appearance of liquid water on a cool earth (from 7.75 billion years ago to 3.75 billion years ago); day three corresponds to the time between the appearance of liquid water on a cool earth and the era in which the earth's atmosphere became transparent to radiation at optical frequencies (from 3.75 billion years ago to 1.75 billion years ago); day four corresponds to the time between the era in which the earth's atmosphere became transparent to radiation at optical frequencies and the appearance of the first multicellular animals (from 1.75 billion years ago to 750 million years ago); day five corresponds to the time between the appearance of the first multicellular animals and the massive extinction towards the very end of the Palaeozoic era (from 750 million years ago to 250 million years ago); and day six corresponds to the time between the massive extinction towards the very end of the Palaeozoic era and the appearance of properly human beings (from 250 million years ago to 5, 759 years ago). Even if we take on trust Schroeder's claim that the cosmic microwave background radiation provides a clock which measures the history of the universe in this way, there are many reasons to be sceptical about the suggestion that the account in Genesis is an account of a Big Bang universe of the kind in which we now suppose ourselves to live. Perhaps the most obvious consideration is that it is far more plausible to suppose that the account in Genesis is myth: the people who wrote that account did not have the slightest inkling of twentieth century cosmology, and there is no serious way to make sense of the idea that they intended to refer to it. Indeed, it seems to me pretty clear that general problems about translation and interpretation--and the absence of any attempt to address these problems in a systematic, theoretical way--make it more or less impossible to take Schroeder's project seriously.
source
​

And from another review of the book that explains, in simpler terms, Schroeder's reconciliation of the young Earth creationist Biblical view and the old earth model of science.

"Schroeder attempts to reconcile a young Earth creationist Biblical view with the scientific model of a world that is billions of years old using the idea that the perceived flow of time for a given event in an expanding universe varies with the observer’s perspective of that event. He attempts to reconcile the two perspectives numerically, calculating the effect of the stretching of space-time, based on Einstein's theory of general relativity."
source
​

 

[The Neo Nerd]

You should read the True Believer by Eric Hoffer. Although it is purely speculative, it shed some light on this sort of behavior for me.

If i see it i'll have a look.

Have a read of this:

Mind Control | The 7th Fire

An interesting talk on mind control/conversion techniques.

and also have a look at Freuds work on defense mechanisms

Defence mechanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Especially Level 1 - Pathological. I could write a thesis on the techniques used by some of anti-evolutionists on this forum.

 

[Pegg]

And here's an explanation of how "Schroeder attempts to reconcile a young Earth creationist Biblical view with the scientific model of a world that is billions of years old"

"(viii) the theory of relativity explains how the six days of Genesis are in fact fifteen billion earth years (41-71); (ix) difficulties which face standard evolutionary accounts of the origins of life strongly indicate that the evolution of life was preprogrammed by an intelligent designer (83-124); and so on.
​

One crucial part of Schroeder's attempt to reconcile the Bible with recent science involves his claim that the six days of creation mentioned in Genesis are measured from the perspective of the wave frequency of the cosmic microwave background radiation. On his account, day one corresponds to the time between the moment of quark confinement and the formation of the disk of the Milky Way (from 15.75 billion years ago to 7.75 billion years ago); day two corresponds to the time between the formation of the disk of the Milky Way and the appearance of liquid water on a cool earth (from 7.75 billion years ago to 3.75 billion years ago); day three corresponds to the time between the appearance of liquid water on a cool earth and the era in which the earth's atmosphere became transparent to radiation at optical frequencies (from 3.75 billion years ago to 1.75 billion years ago); day four corresponds to the time between the era in which the earth's atmosphere became transparent to radiation at optical frequencies and the appearance of the first multicellular animals (from 1.75 billion years ago to 750 million years ago); day five corresponds to the time between the appearance of the first multicellular animals and the massive extinction towards the very end of the Palaeozoic era (from 750 million years ago to 250 million years ago); and day six corresponds to the time between the massive extinction towards the very end of the Palaeozoic era and the appearance of properly human beings (from 250 million years ago to 5, 759 years ago). Even if we take on trust Schroeder's claim that the cosmic microwave background radiation provides a clock which measures the history of the universe in this way, there are many reasons to be sceptical about the suggestion that the account in Genesis is an account of a Big Bang universe of the kind in which we now suppose ourselves to live. Perhaps the most obvious consideration is that it is far more plausible to suppose that the account in Genesis is myth: the people who wrote that account did not have the slightest inkling of twentieth century cosmology, and there is no serious way to make sense of the idea that they intended to refer to it. Indeed, it seems to me pretty clear that general problems about translation and interpretation--and the absence of any attempt to address these problems in a systematic, theoretical way--make it more or less impossible to take Schroeder's project seriously.
source​

i think that is a little unfair of the writer on this point. Schoders cosmic clock is quite revolutionary thinking...not that i agree or disagree with it...im still trying to get my head around it really. I think he's obviously put a lot of thought into this which is why it is unfair to so easily dismiss it as nonsense.

​

And from another review of the book that explains, in simpler terms, Schroeder's reconciliation of the young Earth creationist Biblical view and the old earth model of science.

"Schroeder attempts to reconcile a young Earth creationist Biblical view with the scientific model of a world that is billions of years old using the idea that the perceived flow of time for a given event in an expanding universe varies with the observer’s perspective of that event. He attempts to reconcile the two perspectives numerically, calculating the effect of the stretching of space-time, based on Einstein's theory of general relativity."
source
​

he's not a young earth creationist....just read his book and you'll see that

what he does is explain how the 'day' in genesis can be understood in terms of time...and he has no problem with a 15billion year old earth.

 

[Skwim]

i think that is a little unfair of the writer on this point. Schoders cosmic clock is quite revolutionary thinking...not that i agree or disagree with it...im still trying to get my head around it really. I think he's obviously put a lot of thought into this which is why it is unfair to so easily dismiss it as nonsense.

It seems as if you're equating novelty ("revolutionary thinking") and work ("a lot of thought") with reasonableness, which is not a sound way to evaluate the worth of any enterprise.

he's not a young earth creationist....just read his book and you'll see that

I wouldn't think he is. As I understand Schroeder's goal, he was merely trying to show YECs how their six "days" aren't the 24 hour days we know, but in reality, are spans of time lasting millions or billions of years.

 

[newhope101]

The problem NewHope, is you totally ignore substantive rebuttals and direct questions, as I will now demonstrate.


Don't confuse your poor understanding with the state of the actual science. Documented mutations that increase fitness are a dime a dozen...You are kidding Right????

Mutations That Increase the Life Span of C. elegans Inhibit Tumor Growth

evolution resistance HIV - Google Scholar

Herbicide Resistant Weeds

Extraordinary Flux in Sex Ratio

A Retrotransposon-Mediated Gene Duplication Underlies Morphological Variation of Tomato Fruit

Evolutionary adaptation to temperature. VIII. Effe... [Evolution. 2001] - PubMed result

You want to keep going? No that is boring enough, so will the flu or HIV or immunity turn a chimpy person into a human or a dino into a bird or the other way around, or did duplications turn a fruitfly into anything else apart from a fruitfly growing legs from its head ..I know it's the best you can do but it is truly pitiful and not accepted by your own as a method of speciation....and don't forget horiszontal gene transfer in multicelled organisms.....etc etc. A real sad attempt.


Genetic drift is simply a result of mathematical sampling error. When an allele arises in a population, it may or may not be fixed not only due to selective pressures, but simple random sampling.

The mathematics behind genetic drift have been around for literally decades. The famous population geneticist Sewell Wright first coined the term "drift" in 1929! So your suggestion that it is only now being proposed is incorrect.


You're disputing that alleles can be fixed in a population? Really? Before I post examples of exactly that, I want to make sure that's truly what you're arguing.
　

How about you tell us exactly what these debates are? Don't just copy and paste, tell us in your own words what you think they're about.


If that's the case, then are examples of geologically rapid evolution and speciation contradictory to Sanford's arguments?


And we have examples of increases in genetic variation in populations. So what?


What exactly do you mean here? And again, don't respond with yet another copy and paste; tell us in your own words what you're talking about.


Right, there are differing views among paleontologists about the evolutionary history of birds, i.e. whether they're descended from dinosaurs, some other group, or share a common ancestor with them.

Again, so what? What exactly is your point?


No there aren't, and no they haven't. Simply writing something up and posting it on a website is not "refuting the ToE". If that were the case, then heliocentrism has been refuted as well, because there are credentialed scientists who have posted material on the web that they claim refutes it.

If bone fide scientists have refuted evolutionary theory, why haven't they published it in the professional literature? And don't baldly assert grand conspiracies unless you can provide direct evidence of them. Show the paper these researchers submitted and the rejection letters they received from the journals. Anything less, and you're just making up conspiracy theories to excuse away inconvenient reality.

Now, I'm betting that you're going to ignore this post or at least won't directly answer the questions in it. So the ball is in your court...are you going to confirm the general impression folks have formed of you here (i.e. a stereotype of the worst kind of creationist) or are you going to step up to the plate and address the data and answer questions?

Oh dear you are confused. Your plethora of links are not examples of evolution darls. So do you reckon for all the millions of years fossil records remained in stasis that immunologicol adaptations were not going on. This does not explain your evolution dear. That is a very simplistic reponse and underlies your education. Hence, a belated reply out of boredom. Your current modelling is based on classic selective sweeps.....out the window it goes.....


But when the two groups were compared, the troughs of low diversity were similar for genes that produce functional changes and genes with synonymous substitutions that do not. The result suggests that classic selective sweeps could not have been the most common cause of these low diversity troughs, leaving the door open for other modes of evolution.

"Phenotypic variation in humans isn't as simple as we thought it would be," Hernandez said. "The idea that human adaptation might proceed by single changes at the amino acid level is quite a nice idea, and it's great that we have a few concrete examples of where that occurred, but it's too simplistic a view."
Subtle shifts, not major sweeps, drove human evolution

This reference to disease and HIV resistence is a pitifull example of refute.

Pegg is correct. I cannot be bothered refuting you if all you can come up with is nonsense. Immunity.. as if that is going to turn a chimp creature into a human. Get over it!..then again that is all you got...Shame for you!

The time your researchers tried to fix something in the population, not related to disease or immunity, that even remotely looked like anything of substance you failed with drosophila over 600 generations.

The point mostly being and I will reiterate, your own researchers debate each other. It is nothong that you refute Sandford. So what? That really means nothing.

Creationists have excellent evidence for creation that is just as robust as your theoretical assertions.

Just because an evo researcher goes bla bla bla woffle woffle, do you really thing that throws any orher view out the window. Remember your LUCA. Remember your knuckle walking ancestry, remember the bird ancestry debate, remember the brain connection to walking, even Ardi is debated as an ancestor by your own researchers. Seriously your evidence is certainly no more robust than your assertions against biblical creationists evidence. It is slapshot and changeable and behaves more like a wish list. The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution itself and has no predictive power, eg gradualism is untrue and punctuated equilibrium of stasis and then accelerated evolution. Your theory is all that is macroevolving around here.

Autodidact, do you want me to embarrass you again.eg Tiktallik? You had better go check current research on the lines you pictured, unreferenced of course and stop wasting our time.:sleep:

Creationists have made an informed choice that the veracity of your evidence for TOE is not sufficiently robust that they should jump ship to another faith.

Sanford is very well educated. Many of his works have been submitted to the scientific community. He was an evolutionist. Creationists include very well credentialed researchers that can submit excellent theoretical evidence for their assertions.

Your science is a mess, and contested and debated genomically and taxonomically by researchers that have access to the same research, and still disaree. Meaning this clear and irrefuteable evidence of yours is about as clear as mud, including the human lineage.
Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry
Scientists raise doubts about human link to Ethiopia fossil - The Boston Globe

With all the squabbling going on in your own evolutionary circles who cares if you find some flimsy refutes to Sanford or anything I or Pegg puts up. Creationist research is still very convincing and an excellent refute to TOE. :bow:

 

[Autodidact]

No one knows the rates at which mutations occur or the order and magnitude of them

Actually, yes we do.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact, do you want me to embarrass you again.eg Tiktallik? You had better go check current research on the lines you pictured, unreferenced of course and stop wasting our time.:sleep:

In order to embarrass me again, you would have to have embarrassed me at least once. Thus far in history, the only person you have embarrassed is yourself. [Paluxy!!!]
What is your point regarding Tiktaalik?

Creationists have made an informed choice that the veracity of your evidence for TOE is not sufficiently robust that they should jump ship to another faith.

Well, creationists believe their eternal salvation depends on refusing to do so, so it's not very surprising that they refuse to do so, is it?

Sanford is very well educated. Many of his works have been submitted to the scientific community. He was an evolutionist. Creationists include very well credentialed researchers that can submit excellent theoretical evidence for their assertions.

That may be, however, he's also wrong, as can easily been shown.

Your science is a mess, and contested and debated genomically and taxonomically by researchers that have access to the same research, and still disaree. Meaning this clear and irrefuteable evidence of yours is about as clear as mud, including the human lineage.
Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry
Scientists raise doubts about human link to Ethiopia fossil - The Boston Globe

With all the squabbling going on in your own evolutionary circles who cares if you find some flimsy refutes to Sanford or anything I or Pegg puts up. Creationist research is still very convincing and an excellent refute to TOE. :bow:

They earth isn't precisely round! Therefore it's flat!

 

[newhope101]

Actually, yes we do.

No! you do not!!!!!!!!!:no:

Ho Ho Ho Autodidact you have done it again. You obviously know nothing of the research relating to the finding of a non constant molecular clock. Simple Simon!. :thud:

BTW..Do you even know what somatic means???????????.

Actually as usual A SIMPLISTIC answer underlies the sad truth and why some here just aren't worth a reply sometimes.



The molecular clock technique is an important tool in molecular systematics, the use of molecular genetics information to determine the correct scientific classification of organisms or to study variation in selective forces.
Knowledge of approximately-constant rate of molecular evolution in particular sets of lineages also facilitates establishing the dates of phylogenetic events, including those not documented by fossils, such as the divergence of living taxa and the formation of the phylogenetic tree. But in these cases — especially over long stretches of time — the limitations of MCH (above) must be considered; such estimates may be off by 50% or more.

Non-constant rate of molecular clock

The molecular clock runs into particular challenges at very short and very long timescales. At long timescales, the problem is saturation. When enough time has passed, many sites have undergone more than one change, but it is impossible to detect more than one. This means that the observed number of changes is no longer linear with time, but instead flattens out.

At very short time scales, many differences between samples do not represent fixation of different sequences in the different populations. Instead, they represent alternative alleles that were both present as part of a polymorphism in the common ancestor. The inclusion of differences that have not yet become fixed leads to a potentially dramatic inflation of the apparent rate of the molecular clock at very short timescales.[16][17]
Molecular clock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Harmful mutations
Changes in DNA caused by mutation can cause errors in protein sequence, creating partially or completely non-functional proteins. To function correctly, each cell depends on thousands of proteins to function in the right places at the right times.

When a mutation alters a protein that plays a critical role in the body, a medical condition can result. A condition caused by mutations in one or more genes is called a genetic disorder. Some mutations alter a gene's DNA base sequence but do not change the function of the protein made by the gene. Studies of the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation does change a protein, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[39] However, studies in yeast have shown that only 7% of mutations that are not in genes are harmful.[40]

If a mutation is present in a germ cell, it can give rise to offspring that carries the mutation in all of its cells. This is the case in hereditary diseases. On the other hand, a mutation may occur in a somatic cell of an organism. Such mutations will be present in all descendants of this cell within the same organism, and certain mutations can cause the cell to become malignant, and thus cause cancer.[41]
Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[David M]

Actually as usual A SIMPLISTIC answer underlies the sad truth and why some here just aren't worth a reply sometimes.

As usual your reply once again demonstrates your inability to comprehend wiki articles and your ignorance of biology.

The molecular clock is not the same as knowing the rate and magnitude of mutations which is what Wilson asked. Its a way of quantifying time based on knowing the rate of mutations.

It has its limitations, but as the text you quoted shows those are not based on errors in our knowledge of the rate of mutations but in being able to detect exactly how many mutations have occurred.

The article supports Auto, but your ignorance is just to profound to understand this.

Every time you arrogantly claim victory you follow it up by an article that is either irrelevant or destroys your position. You need to stop embarrassing yourself by actually reading the articles you post until you actually understand them.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

With all the squabbling going on in your own evolutionary circles who cares if you find some flimsy refutes to Sanford or anything I or Pegg puts up. Creationist research is still very convincing and an excellent refute to TOE. :bow:

The creation science test

I got them all wrong

 

[newhope101]

As usual your reply once again demonstrates your inability to comprehend wiki articles and your ignorance of biology.

The molecular clock is not the same as knowing the rate and magnitude of mutations which is what Wilson asked. Its a way of quantifying time based on knowing the rate of mutations.

It has its limitations, but as the text you quoted shows those are not based on errors in our knowledge of the rate of mutations but in being able to detect exactly how many mutations have occurred.
No there is no exactness only roughly
The article supports Auto, but your ignorance is just to profound to understand this.
Yours ignorance is more evolved
Every time you arrogantly claim victory you follow it up by an article that is either irrelevant or destroys your position. You need to stop embarrassing yourself by actually reading the articles you post until you actually understand them.My victories are very sweet

No dear you need to stop embarrassing yourself by trying to cover Auto's ignorance. Do please tell us how you reckon your evo brains work out mutations rates Miss Prissy.

You also are showing your ignorance here. Mutation rates are not only not constant but regions within the genome do not mutate at a constant rate either. If you remember anything from the Y chromosome info I posted a million times you would have an example in your head to draw on. Alas it may be empty.

If the rate of neutral mutations in a sequence is assumed to be constant (clock-like), and if most differences between species are neutral rather than adaptive, then the number of differences between two different species can be used to estimate how long ago two species diverged (see molecular clock). In fact, the mutation rate of an organism may change in response to environmental stress. For example UV light damages DNA, which may result in error prone attempts by the cell to perform DNA repair.

The human mutation rate is higher in the male germ line (sperm) than the female (egg cells), but estimates of the exact rate have varied by an order of magnitude or more.[1][3]
In general, the mutation rate in eukaryotes and bacteria the rate is roughly 10−8 per base pair per generation[4]. The highest mutation rates are found in viruses, which can have either RNA or DNA genomes. DNA viruses have mutation rates between 10−6 to 10−8 mutations per base per generation, and RNA viruses have mutation rates between 10−3 to 10−5 per base per generation[4]. Human mitochondrial DNA has been estimated to have mutation rates of ~3×10−6 or ~2.7×10−5 per base per 20 year generation (depending on the method of estimation)[5]; these rates are considered to be significantly higher than rates of human genomic mutation at ~2.5×10−8 per base per generation[1]. Using data available from whole genome sequencing, the human genome mutation rate is similarly estimated to be ~1.1×10−8 per site per generation [6].
RNA has a drastically higher mutation rate than DNA because of several DNA repair systems that can correct changes before they become fixed in the genome as mutations.[7]

Mutation rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DNA Mutation Rates - An Overview and Discussion

http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=MU04039.pdf

Male Sex Chromosome Losing Genes By Rapid Evolution, Study Reveals This research actually supports Sanfords assertions, so I thought I'd throw it in anyway.

The best your researchers can do is prattle on and on about disease and immunity as if immunity is going to change a chimppy creature into human or a hippo into a whale. It is all crap anyway, and seriously straw grabbing, but anyway that's your evo science..just another debated area with contradictions.

Do you know what a somatic changes is?

Do you want to debate this out for pages and pages and really illustrate to us all just how much you don't know?

 

[newhope101]

The creation science test

I got them all wrong

 

[Jose Fly]

Pegg,

Your copy and paste is not only wrong, but terribly wrong, as evidenced by the following question central to his argument:

Can this arrangement be the result of random selection?

"Random selection" is an oxymoron. If something is a selective process, it is not random. Natural selection in evolution is a decidedly non-random process.

Thus, your copy and paste is not only a straw man, it's not even a good one.

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh dear you are confused. Your plethora of links are not examples of evolution darls.

First, yes they are. They are examples of allele changes in populations. What exactly do you think evolution is? Second, not only are they examples of evolution, they are examples of the type of evolution you were arguing against, i.e. mutations that increase the fitness of the population.

No that is boring enough, so will the flu or HIV or immunity turn a chimpy person into a human or a dino into a bird or the other way around, or did duplications turn a fruitfly into anything else apart from a fruitfly growing legs from its head ..I know it's the best you can do but it is truly pitiful and not accepted by your own as a method of speciation

You're committing the fallacy of moving the goalposts. You were arguing against the occurrence of mutations that increase the fitness of a population (i.e. beneficial mutations). I provided you with multiple documented examples of exactly that. And in response, rather than directly address the data and either 1) explain why those aren't really examples of beneficial mutations being fixed in populations, or 2) concede the point, you instead demand something else (and something that's rather absurd....I mean, you really think evolution is HIV turning into a person in a few generations? Really?)

So do you reckon for all the millions of years fossil records remained in stasis that immunologicol adaptations were not going on. This does not explain your evolution dear.

I'm sorry, but you're not really making much sense. What are you talking about with explaining my evolution?

That is a very simplistic reponse and underlies your education. Hence, a belated reply out of boredom. Your current modelling is based on classic selective sweeps.....out the window it goes.....

Are you talking about genetic drift here? I honestly can't tell.

But when the two groups were compared, the troughs of low diversity were similar for genes that produce functional changes and genes with synonymous substitutions that do not. The result suggests that classic selective sweeps could not have been the most common cause of these low diversity troughs, leaving the door open for other modes of evolution.

"Phenotypic variation in humans isn't as simple as we thought it would be," Hernandez said. "The idea that human adaptation might proceed by single changes at the amino acid level is quite a nice idea, and it's great that we have a few concrete examples of where that occurred, but it's too simplistic a view."
Subtle shifts, not major sweeps, drove human evolution

This reference to disease and HIV resistence is a pitifull example of refute.

It's exactly what you were discussing, i.e. a fixed mutation that increases the fitness of the population. You argued such things don't happen, but there is a classic example of it happening. Do you think you're representing your faith well when you deny observed reality in such a blatant manner?

Pegg is correct. I cannot be bothered refuting you if all you can come up with is nonsense. Immunity.. as if that is going to turn a chimp creature into a human. Get over it!..then again that is all you got...Shame for you!

Thank you for demonstrating my point. You absolutely refuse to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion or debate of the issue and ignore substantive rebuttals of your childish posts.

Again, do you honestly think you're representing Christianity in a positive light with this sort of behavior?

The time your researchers tried to fix something in the population, not related to disease or immunity, that even remotely looked like anything of substance you failed with drosophila over 600 generations.

First, why are "disease or immunity" excluded? Second, you're simply showing that you didn't examine the data I provided you. Only one of those links had anything to do with "disease or immunity".

The point mostly being and I will reiterate, your own researchers debate each other.

Again, so what?

Creationists have excellent evidence for creation that is just as robust as your theoretical assertions.

Why? Because you say so? Are you expecting us to accept your unsubstantiated assertions as unquestioned gospel?

Where are the published papers that provide this evidence? And again, do not invoke conspiracy theories without providing direct evidence of such.

Just because an evo researcher goes bla bla bla woffle woffle, do you really thing that throws any orher view out the window.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask...are you a teenager?

Remember your LUCA. Remember your knuckle walking ancestry, remember the bird ancestry debate, remember the brain connection to walking, even Ardi is debated as an ancestor by your own researchers.

Again, what about them?

Seriously your evidence is certainly no more robust than your assertions against biblical creationists evidence. It is slapshot and changeable and behaves more like a wish list.

What "biblical creationists evidence" are you talking about? And again, things aren't so simply because you say they are. If you really think creationists have evidence that is superior to that of modern science, then show it.

Any 10-year old with a laptop can come into a forum like this and say "the moon is made of cheese", but it's something else entirely to substantiate one's statements with real data.

So which are you? The 10-year old or something better?

The theory of evolution is a theory in evolution itself and has no predictive power, eg gradualism is untrue and punctuated equilibrium of stasis and then accelerated evolution. Your theory is all that is macroevolving around here.

Again, your empty assertions are directly contradicted by the data. You've been provided direct examples of gradual evolutionary change in this thread, yet here you are still declaring that they don't exist.

What exactly are you expecting here? Are you seriously thinking there are people who are going be like, "Well, I know there are multiple published scientific papers that describe documented examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record, but NewHope says they don't exist...so I guess they don't"?

Why do you seem to think your say-so trumps observed reality?

Autodidact, do you want me to embarrass you again.eg Tiktallik?

That's an interesting boast NewHope. Tell me, how did the paleontologists who discovered Tiktallik know where to look?

Creationists have made an informed choice that the veracity of your evidence for TOE is not sufficiently robust that they should jump ship to another faith.

And now we're back to that question you won't answer: Do you equate evolution with atheism?

Creationists include very well credentialed researchers that can submit excellent theoretical evidence for their assertions.

So again, where are these examples of published "excellent theoretical evidence" for creationism? Quit claiming they exist and back up your rhetoric with hard data.

Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry
Scientists raise doubts about human link to Ethiopia fossil - The Boston Globe

Again, evolutionary scientists disagree over specific interpretations of specific fossils. So what? What exactly is your point?

With all the squabbling going on in your own evolutionary circles who cares if you find some flimsy refutes to Sanford or anything I or Pegg puts up. Creationist research is still very convincing and an excellent refute to TOE. :bow:

"The moon is made of cheese".

There, now both of us have made empty assertions. So tell me, why do you think yours is more valid than mine?

Oh, and you ignored a few questions:

Are you disputing that alleles can be fixed in a population?

How about you tell us exactly what these debates [i.e. "neutralist-selectionist debate, the founder effect debate, chaos theory"] are? Don't just copy and paste, tell us in your own words what you think they're about.

Are examples of geologically rapid evolution and speciation contradictory to Sanford's arguments?

What exactly did you mean by, "Common knowledge has been tossed into the garbage bin of delusionary evidence many times, where the opposers are found vindicated eg LUCA"?

 

[waitasec]

i guess you would need to qualify what an anomaly is;
a departure from what exactly? and how would you support it?

 

[newhope101]

For goodnes sake Josie stop going around in circles with every sort of aside.

Auto stated mutations rates are constant in reply to Wilsoncole. I said no they are not and I am simply correct. Your asides are a waste of my time. This is Wilsoncoles debate.

I am right. Auto was wrong. That is that!

I won't even go near why your probabilities and presumptions are nonsense as that is another debate. Wilsoncole is doing just great..

Waitasec if you are not aware of what an anomoly is you had best go back to BIO101.


PLoS Biology: The Spectrum of Mitochondrial Mutation Differs across Species

BioMed Central | Full text | The erratic mitochondrial clock: variations of mutation rate, not population size, affect mtDNA diversity across birds and mammals.


*We report an unexpected 2 orders of magnitude mitochondrial mutation rate variation between lineages: cytochrome b third codon positions are renewed every 1–2 Myr, in average, in the fastest evolving mammals, whereas it takes >100 Myr in slow-evolving lineages. This result has obvious implications in the fields of molecular phylogeny, molecular dating, and population genetics*

Strong Variations of Mitochondrial Mutation Rate across Mammals

Do you really believe in your computer modelling data? I applaud your strong faith.

 

[Skwim]

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I am right. Auto was wrong. That is that!

Translated: I'm taking my ball and i'm going home!