Creationist - What about Evolution you disagree with?

[Pegg]

Pegg,

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

"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.

i actually typed it out

i'll go back and check the book.. it could be my typo

 

[McBell]

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

What I find interesting is how she has no problems with making a bold faced declaration which is in such direct contradiction to the available facts.

Of course, given her idea of truth and facts, it is not surprising.
Merely interesting.

 

[Pegg]

ok i just checked it and it does say 'random selection'

the chapter is 'Evoluion: Statistics versus Random Mutations'

Statistical analyses of evolution are fraught with assumption. ..In addition, a conceptual error is frequently encountered. Question are often asked about the probability that a specific animal or organ could have evolved by random processes. ... The lack of goal limits an analysis of evolution to calculating the likelihood that the number (not the type) of mutations required for the changes observed in the fossil record might have occurred within the time period indicated by the fossil record. ...
Humans have approximately 30,000 genes...it implies aprox 30.,000 proteins....they would then be organizing some 30 million amino acids into specific structures...Can this arrangement be the result of random selection?

He is specifically talking about human genes/protiens/amino acids here... there could have been any number of combinations within these genes, yet the genes have a very specific combination which produce a very specific outcome
it seems he is asking how could undirected, randomness of such numbers produce something so specific. He goes on to say

"It would be as if nature chose by random from a bag containing a billion billion billion...(repeated 40 times) proteins the one that worked, and then repeated the trick a trillion times! If protein generation were a mere random process, then as with random word generation, the result would also be gibberish, but with life it would be fatal gibberish."

 

[Skwim]

ok i just checked it and it does say 'random selection'

the chapter is 'Evoluion: Statistics versus Random Mutations'

Statistical analyses of evolution are fraught with assumption. ..In addition, a conceptual error is frequently encountered. Question are often asked about the probability that a specific animal or organ could have evolved by random processes. ... The lack of goal limits an analysis of evolution to calculating the likelihood that the number (not the type) of mutations required for the changes observed in the fossil record might have occurred within the time period indicated by the fossil record. ...
Humans have approximately 30,000 genes...it implies aprox 30.,000 proteins....they would then be organizing some 30 million amino acids into specific structures...Can this arrangement be the result of random selection?

He is specifically talking about human genes/protiens/amino acids here... there could have been any number of combinations within these genes, yet the genes have a very specific combination which produce a very specific outcome
it seems he is asking how could undirected, randomness of such numbers produce something so specific. He goes on to say

"It would be as if nature chose by random from a bag containing a billion billion billion...(repeated 40 times) proteins the one that worked, and then repeated the trick a trillion times! If protein generation were a mere random process, then as with random word generation, the result would also be gibberish, but with life it would be fatal gibberish."

Not to butt ahead of Jose Fly here, but I believe you've got the wrong quote. Here is where the phrase appears.

"All mammals have a similar number though not necessarily the same genes. 30,000 genes implies approximately 30,000 proteins. Proteins are strings and coils of between a few hundred and in excess of 1,000 amino acids. The 30,000 genes would then be organizing some thiry million amino acids into specific structures. These make up to 30-70 trillion cells of a healthy human. Can this arrangement be the result of random selection? Lets look at a few numbers."
​

 

[painted wolf]

Random selection..... egads.

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

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

But we can go "back into the past" and verify it. For example, we understand that every year in flood plains a new layer of sediment is laid down. We can observe this occurring, right now, today. We can bore down into the sedimentary layers and literally count the years since each layer was deposited. When we find the remains of animals within a specific layer, we can make a very accurate assessment (i.e to the very year) of the age of those remains.

That is only one single example. I'm sure you've watched the odd crime drama in your life - certain conclusions can be drawn by evidence such as blood clotting, the appearance of rigor mortis, footprints, the angle and depth of the mortal wound, the presence of spores from this or that plant, etc. Evolution is no different: all a biologist's assertions are based entirely on the evidence in front of her, or else she is not doing her job.

Also, we can and do research the rates at which mutations occur, so that is a non-starter.

Yes, we make assumptions. But what distinguishes the assumptions of normal people from the assumptions of creationists is that our assumptions are evidence-based. IOW, we can explain exactly how we have reached our conclusions using nothing but empirical evidence. A creationist can not do so. All creationist assertions rely entirely on faith-based religious claims.

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

We are not lacking in the facts about how such changes have occurred, or how such complex organs could develop: evolution is that fact, and that explanation.

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

OK, but he is still a charlatan, a madman or a fool if he hopes to argue that the exact probability of the evolution of an eyeball can be calculated.

 

[Alceste]

Random selection..... egads.

wa:do

Yep - I have no idea why this is the case, but when it comes to learning the facts about evolution, creationists can not help but go flying en masse to sources that haven't the faintest conception of what "evolution" actually is.

I was flabbergasted by it once, now I expect it: No-one who understands what the ToE actually says can deny its validity. Therefore, when one's spiritual salvation depends on rejection of the ToE, it is literally a matter of life or death to ensure that they never understand it.

 

[Autodidact]

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!.

Well, a little, but what does it have to do with mutation rates?

:thud:

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

Yes, but what does it have to do with mutation rates?

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

what does that have to do with mutation rates?

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

What does that have to do with mutation rates? You said we don't know mutation rates. We do, actually.

 

[Autodidact]

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?

Blah blah irrelevant blah. All I said was, actually yes, we do know the rate of mutations in the genome. Because we do.

In general, the mutation rate in eukaryotes and bacteria the rate is roughly 10−8 per base pair per generation. 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. 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); these rates are considered to be significantly higher than rates of human genomic mutation at ~2.5×10−8 per base per generation. 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. [wiki]

 

[Autodidact]

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

Auto stated mutations rates are constant in reply to Wilsoncole.

No, I didn't. I said that actually, we do know mutation rates. And we do.

I said no they are not and I am simply correct.

Well then your problem seems to be reading comprehension.

Your asides are a waste of my time. This is Wilsoncoles debate.

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

You're not even right about what I said.

Here is our exchange, in full:

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

Actually, yes we do.

Nothing about whether the rates are constant or not, just that we know what they are.

Now that you've been proven wrong, it would be a great chance to rehabilitate your credibility, admit your mistake and apologize.

 

[Pegg]

OK, but he is still a charlatan, a madman or a fool if he hopes to argue that the exact probability of the evolution of an eyeball can be calculated.

he doesnt say that it can

he says that it can't for various reasons...in a similar way that the fossil record cannot give us the full picture of how life developed

 

[fantome profane]

he doesnt say that it can

he says that it can't for various reasons...in a similar way that the fossil record cannot give us the full picture of how life developed

Can he (or you, or anyone) give us a full picture of how life developed? Or even a fuller picture than we have now with the theory of evolution?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Now that you've been proven wrong, it would be a great chance to rehabilitate your credibility, admit your mistake and apologize.

Good luck...

 

[Jose Fly]

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..

Again, thank you for demonstrating my point for me. You absolutely refuse to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion or debate. You also ignore questions, rebuttals and data.

How in the world you think you're representing Christianity in a positive light by doing all that is beyond me. You seriously think Jesus is proud of you for being so blatantly dishonest?

 

[Jose Fly]

<deleted by author>

 

[Jose Fly]

ok i just checked it and it does say 'random selection'

the chapter is 'Evoluion: Statistics versus Random Mutations'

Statistical analyses of evolution are fraught with assumption. ..In addition, a conceptual error is frequently encountered. Question are often asked about the probability that a specific animal or organ could have evolved by random processes. ... The lack of goal limits an analysis of evolution to calculating the likelihood that the number (not the type) of mutations required for the changes observed in the fossil record might have occurred within the time period indicated by the fossil record. ...
Humans have approximately 30,000 genes...it implies aprox 30.,000 proteins....they would then be organizing some 30 million amino acids into specific structures...Can this arrangement be the result of random selection?

He is specifically talking about human genes/protiens/amino acids here... there could have been any number of combinations within these genes, yet the genes have a very specific combination which produce a very specific outcome
it seems he is asking how could undirected, randomness of such numbers produce something so specific. He goes on to say

"It would be as if nature chose by random from a bag containing a billion billion billion...(repeated 40 times) proteins the one that worked, and then repeated the trick a trillion times! If protein generation were a mere random process, then as with random word generation, the result would also be gibberish, but with life it would be fatal gibberish."

Then his argument is a rather silly and pathetic straw man of evolution. Natural selection is decidedly non-random...that's the entire point.

 

[Autodidact]

he doesnt say that it can

he says that it can't for various reasons...in a similar way that the fossil record cannot give us the full picture of how life developed

I'm sure everyone here agrees that the fossil record cannot give us the full picture of how life developed. It can however, help us learn a lot.

 

[newhope101]

I'm sure everyone here agrees that the fossil record cannot give us the full picture of how life developed. It can however, help us learn a lot.

Habilis


Erectus


Perhaps you could shed light on these 2 coexisting species for us all.

Do you think they may have had some sort of sick love affair?

I note erectus does not look dissimilar to the 'old' neanderthal depictions. You know the 'missing link' version before they had to human the neanderthal up in light of DNA testing advances.

These depictions are made from a few bones generally and I expect represent the species around as well as the initial neanderthal sketches did..NOT. With Neanderthal you had many complete fossils and still got it wrong initially and for all we know it is still wrong.

A handwaving wish list is all you have to present as evidence.



Josie you and Auto are the dishonest ones, as you refuse to accept your own evolutionary research demonstrating mutations rates are not only different between species but also within genomic regions. However, you are correct for once in suggesting it is pointless debating either of you when you refuse to acknowledge your own research in place of your own circular reasonings, opinions and ignorance. I have won the point sweeties. There is no need to keep going to simply highlight your ignorance any further.

 

[outhouse]

Do you think they may have had some sort of sick love affair?

this statement alone shows a childish lack of intellegence

 

[outhouse]

I'm sure everyone here agrees that the fossil record cannot give us the full picture of how life developed. It can however, help us learn a lot.

that is a fact