Creationist - What about Evolution you disagree with?

[Autodidact]

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'm sure I have no idea.

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.

The earth is not round! Therefore it's flat!

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.

Yeah, I didn't think you'd admit your mistake nor retract it, even though everyone here can see it in plain view. Some people find it difficult to do that, for some reason.

I didn't make any claim about the rate of mutations, other than that we know what it is. Which we do. So when you said we don't, you were mistaken. Obviously, if we didn't know what it was, then we couldn't know that it's different between species or within genomic regions, as you claim, could we?

 

[Autodidact]

Well although I would not bother otherwise, I'll give you a simple reply.

Have you ever heard of the research that illustrates how traits arise independently.

What vestal organs were so convincing that some researchers went looking for another bird ancestor in the face of the dino to bird theory.
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

And you lot are still busy trying to explain what the hell use is a half wing.

As for the hippo to whale fiasco ...your vestigal organs are about as usefull as tits on a bull. Morphological comparisons shows pigs to be closer to hippos. The DNA disproves that apparently. That is assuming of course your researchers know anything of what they are on about given their insistence on ancestry!. Now you have had to go find a whole lot of other so called vestigal organs to prove another ancestry. In other words your researchers can poof any evidence into existence by pointing to something that looks a little similar to that. They could probably show how whales evolved from humans if they tried to!!!!!!!
Hippo ancestry disputed


So the answer is..all this rubbish you refered to and demanded a respose to... is straw grabbing nonsense.

Why again do whales have hip bones, and are occasionally born with rudimentary limbs?

Why do snakes need hips?

Why are chickens sometimes born with teeth?

Why do blind fish have vestigial eyes?

For that matter, why do I have a tail bone? I don't have a tail.

 

[Autodidact]

The appendix (above), which evolutionists thought to be a vestigial organ, has now been understood to play an important part in the body's immune system. The coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column is also not a vestigial organ but provides an attachment for our pelvic organs so that they will not collapse.

You don't know what a vestigial organ is. Would you like to look it up, or would you rather we explain it to you?

A little information is a dangerous thing. Hence many great ideas fall flat on their face. The biggest thing I don't like about TOE is that grandious claims are continually made and then thrown away into the garbage bin of solid evidence past and nothing more than the machinations of an overactive imagination. eg LUCA & horizontal gene transfer, birds, knuckle walking ancestry etc. Your researchers look at the same evidence and disagree, sometimes at major levels eg birds, neanderthal, out of Afica supporters vs opposition etc.. Why have faith in any of it? If you do, that's great. If you wish to be respected for it..I'll try harder to see your view from now on. However do not insist that I should convert or else I must be an uncredentialed idiot that is unable to make an informed choice.

It's not round! It's flat, flat I tell you!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110209105600.htmWe're all worn out explaining to you over and over that's how science works. That's science. That's how you know ToE is science. Science works like that. When conclusions change, you know you've got science. How about that science, isn't it cool? Just because we realized that the earth actually has a slight bulge, does not mean that Round Earth Theory is wrong. It's just a little more right than it used to be. And it's certainly not flat.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

What vestal organs were so convincing that some researchers went looking for another bird ancestor in the face of the dino to bird theory.
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

So what? So birds may not have directly evolved from dino's. The only thing that proves is science is ever evolving, and when they make new discoveries, other scientists look at the data, and then say "Hey, good on ya. You found something we missed." That's what science is. It isn't proof. It's about possible explaination based on empiracle evidence, which changes as new discoveries are made. As it should. If scientists didnt make new discoveries, then the whole process would be moot, because there would be nothing left for them to do.

Problem is, thats the one thing the creationists are lacking. Any sort of empiracle evidence.

 

[Pegg]

Good.

In that case the changed trait would necessarily be different from the original. The fact is, the only way a change in a trait can occur is if the genetic message is different--has changed. Now that difference doesn't need to be great, however if it introduces some survival advantage to the organism then it and its offspring will eventually better survive those that didn't incur the change. And this process of change, involving many, many small random mutations, will eventually---over perhaps hundreds to thousands of years---radically change the organism from the original form. And over millions of years accumulated mutations may so change it that it no longer resembles its ancestor in the least. In fact, the original trait may even be lost.

this is precisely what many doubt

the fact is, that for the current rate of mutations seen in gametes (from 1 per 10,000 to one per 100,000), it would require a mutation rate a million times higher in order to get from a chimp to a cro magnon man in the space 7 million years


I'll go back to Shroders book and post how the calculation has been made:

"The approximate breeding population for herds of many large animals is 10,000. Assume a yearly mating season in which all sexually mature members of the herd participate. At a gamete mutation rate even as high as one per 10 matings, there will be 500 mutations in the herd each year, with 3% of these (or 15) in the expressed region of the genome. At each point on the chromosome, any of 4 bases may reside. Therefore, on average only one in four of the 15 mutations will lead toward a positive improvement of the host animal. The mutations must then spread thru the entire herd by subsequent interbreeding of the mutatn with its nonmutated relatives.

If the mutation is neutral, offering no immediate selective advantage, and it is not lost by subsequent mutations, it will spread through the herd in approximately 5,000 generations. If each mutation gives as much as a 1% advantage to the mutant over the remainder of the herd, 500 generations are required for each new mutation to spread through the herd and become a dominant trait in the the entire herd. The compound interest formula gives this result.
If the common ancestor of Cro-Magnon and chimps was sexually similar to modern day chimps, then it attained sexual matruity at about 7 years of age. The 500 generations of interbreeding thus represent over 3,000 years.

.... Assume 15 concurrently changeing traits, each trait having 70.,000 altered sites. As an added benefit, we will have the mutations always fall within the narrow on million site band (out of the total of 90million active sites) that harbors the basis of change.
At each nucleotide location, one of four bases may be selected, only on eof which is correct. The probability, p, of filling the first site correctly is one minus the probability of failure, q:

p=1 - q = 1 - (279,999/280,000)r where r is the number of generations.

The 280,000 represents the 70,000 sites of each trait, each site having one of four possible bases. Some 500,000 generations are required for an 83% probability that the first of the 70,000 mutations will have occurred. For completion of the task, we require hundreds of millions of generations. The fossil record tell us it happened in 7 million years.

Alternatively, if we allow the needed million mutations to occur in any order, but have the 15 annual mutations distributed randomly over the 90million bases, then there is a 17% chance that the mutation will occur at a potentially beneficial site and a one in four chance that the mutation will lelect for a beneficial base at that site. The probability of success in the first generation is:

p= 0.17 x 0.25 = 0.0425

the probability of failure is:

q = 1 - p = 0.9575

the probability of success in subsequent generations is:

p = 1 - qr = 1 - (0.9575)r

40 generations pass befroe there is an 82 percent probability that any one of the potentially useful mutation will have occured. Nature requires a million changes or 40million generations, even neglecting the 500 to 5,000 generations required for each mutation to spread through the herd. The fossil record gives us 7million years. "

He then goes on to adjust the herd size to 100,000 members which provides a tenfold increase in the number of mutations per generation but this only increases the amount of time needed to establish permanent traits. And 7 million years is just not enough time...no where near it.

 

[Noaidi]

the fact is, that for the current rate of mutations seen in gametes (from 1 per 10,000 to one per 100,000), it would require a mutation rate a million times higher in order to get from a chimp to a cro magnon man in the space 7 million years

Please, Pegg. Read up on human evolution. You didn't have chimps turning into humans - we had a common ancestor.

 

[painted wolf]

People make this mistake because there are people like you over simplifying any response to any question and trying to make the proposer appear silly while bolstering themselves undeservedly. It is truly these simplistic responses that makes one look silly and ill informed. Half of 'it' is random the other half is lucky.

No... survival isn't pure luck.
Talk about over simplifying and looking ill informed. Not only is your "half of it" explanation more grossly oversimplified than anything I posted, but it's totally incorrect. Totally worth a chuckle though, thanks! :tuna:

I think Pegg knows more than you despite all your attitude and supposed quals.

that's nice... I'm sure it makes you feel very fuzzy inside to think so.

Indeed humans are lucky to be here, the chimps, gorillas & orangs etc all missed out and are now being eradicated..brains were the way to go!!!!!.

Yes, because the extermination of our environment and our fellow species is so very intelligent. :areyoucra

Evolution by natural selection is a two-step process, and only the first step is random: mutations are chance events, but their survival is often anything but. Natural selection favours mutations that provide some advantage (see

Evolution promotes the survival of species), and the physical world imposes very strict limits on what works and what doesn't. The result is that organisms evolve in particular directions.

Evolution myths: Evolution is random - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:yes:

Do try to pay attention... we were talking about selection. I know you like to jump in and make totally non-sequitor arguments, but this is getting pathetic. Selection....not Genetic drift or evolution as a whole. :tuna:

Selection is not a purely random process.

Now, do you have something of value to add? Or are you going to go off on another useless tangent? :slap:

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

no its not....its pre programmed into them.

So why isn't it found in all bears? Or did God make a new program for every species of Bear?

For their DNA to contain the information means that someone had to put the information there in the first place.

Snowflakes contain "information"... does someone sculpt them as well?

A computer is only as good as the software uploaded in it.

Computers don't make babies and mutate. DNA is not software.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

t
"The approximate breeding population for herds of many large animals is 10,000. Assume a yearly mating season in which all sexually mature members of the herd participate. At a gamete mutation rate even as high as one per 10 matings, there will be 500 mutations in the herd each year, with 3% of these (or 15) in the expressed region of the genome.

I am not an expert, but I believe this is the source of his error. In fact there are several mutations in every offspring. Thus the actual mutation rate is many times his assumption.

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]

in total, we all carry 100-200 new mutations in our DNA. This is equivalent to one mutation in each 15 to 30 million nucleotides.

Science Daily

 

[Gunfingers]

Computers don't make babies and mutate. DNA is not software.

Interestingly there are a few fields of computing that have been able to show emergent behavior. For example, a simple swarm AI* has been shown to create pincer attacks, a behavior not at all programmed into them. Neural Net AIs, which are the programs used to recognize handwriting or voices among other things, perform by having multiple examples run by them and being re-weighted based on their output. They actually "learn"**.

*AI swarms are multiple objects with their own behavior programmed in. Each individual is called a "floy". The floys are programmed to pursue a prey floy (which, in turn, is programmed to flee predator floys) and to stay close to other floys.

**The Terminator used a neural net processor.

 

[Jose Fly]

Pegg,

Once again your source is completely wrong. The first time he referred to "random selection" and now he says...

Assume a yearly mating season in which all sexually mature members of the herd participate. At a gamete mutation rate even as high as one per 10 matings, there will be 500 mutations in the herd each year

His numbers are waaaaaaaay off. The average mutation rate for humans (and most mammals) is in the range of 100-200 new mutations per individual.

Human mutation rate revealed : Nature News

So once again your source is misleading you, either out of ignorance or incompetence. Either way, if I were you I wouldn't trust him.

And regarding how evolution works in a non-random way, think of it like this: I have a black cloth bag with 100 discs in it. There are ten of each color. I reach into the bag and pull out one disc at a time. Whenever I get a red disc I keep it, but whenever I get a non-red disc I put it back in the bag. After repeating this process for a while, I will eventually end up with all red discs. But how can that be? I couldn't see in the bag and the discs all felt the same, so how could my picking discs at random end up with me having all red discs? What's the probability of that?

Ah, but wait...when we factor in the selective part of the process, suddenly my ending up with all red discs is not only probable, it's inevitable. And that's similar to how evolution works...mutations are generated randomly, but they are passed through a selective filter (the interface between fitness and the environment) and those that don't "work" (the non-red discs) are eliminated and those that do (the red discs) are kept.

 

[painted wolf]

Interestingly there are a few fields of computing that have been able to show emergent behavior. For example, a simple swarm AI* has been shown to create pincer attacks, a behavior not at all programmed into them.
Neural Net AIs, which are the programs used to recognize handwriting or voices among other things, perform by having multiple examples run by them and being re-weighted based on their output. They actually "learn"**.

*AI swarms are multiple objects with their own behavior programmed in. Each individual is called a "floy". The floys are programmed to pursue a prey floy (which, in turn, is programmed to flee predator floys) and to stay close to other floys.

**The Terminator used a neural net processor.

And?

A lot of behavior is emergent.... but what does that have to with anything?

wa:do

 

[Skwim]

this is precisely what many doubt

the fact is, that for the current rate of mutations seen in gametes (from 1 per 10,000 to one per 100,000), it would require a mutation rate a million times higher in order to get from a chimp to a cro magnon man in the space 7 million years


I'll go back to Shroders book and post how the calculation has been made:

And I'll go back to the critique of Shroder's statistical methods So, unless you can show how the critique is wrong, Shroders calculations don't mean squat.

 

[Gunfingers]

And?

A lot of behavior is emergent.... but what does that have to with anything?

wa:do

And Pegg, or whoever, is only more full of crap, because the ability for emergent behavior has been demonstrated in computer science.

Plus it's just really cool.

 

[painted wolf]

And Pegg, or whoever, is only more full of crap, because the ability for emergent behavior has been demonstrated in computer science.

Plus it's just really cool.

It is pretty cool.

I also think evolving AI's are very interesting.

wa:do

 

[David M]

The appendix (above), which evolutionists thought to be a vestigial organ, has now been understood to play an important part in the body's immune system. The coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column is also not a vestigial organ but provides an attachment for our pelvic organs so that they will not collapse.

And as expected you demonstrate the you do not know what the definition of vestigial is. Vestigial has never just meant without any function.

Just to help you here is what Darwin wrote on the subject:
Origin of Species, Chapter 14

An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. Thus, in plants, the office of the pistil is to allow the pollen-tubes to reach the ovules within the ovarium. The pistil consists of a stigma supported on the style; but in some Compositae, the male florets, which of course cannot be fecundated, have a rudimentary pistil, for it is not crowned with a stigma; but the style remains well developed and is clothed in the usual manner with hairs, which serve to brush the pollen out of the surrounding and conjoined anthers. Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct one: in certain fishes the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung.

 

[Pegg]

Pegg,

Once again your source is completely wrong. The first time he referred to "random selection" and now he says...


His numbers are waaaaaaaay off. The average mutation rate for humans (and most mammals) is in the range of 100-200 new mutations per individual.

He is doing that deliberately to show that even if the mutation rate was MUCH HIGHER then it is, then there is still not enough time for a chimp to evolve into a human... 7 million years is not long enough

He is giving evolution the benefit of the doubt basically...he's upping the known rate tenfold in order to try and get the possibility of major change in the figure of the 7 million years required and it still isnt enough time.

 

[Autodidact]

He is doing that deliberately to show that even if the mutation rate was MUCH HIGHER then it is, then there is still not enough time for a chimp to evolve into a human... 7 million years is not long enough

He is giving evolution the benefit of the doubt basically...he's upping the known rate tenfold in order to try and get the possibility of major change in the figure of the 7 million years required and it still isnt enough time.

No, you misunderstood the math. He's using a rate that's many times LOWER than the actual rate.

 

[David M]

He is doing that deliberately to show that even if the mutation rate was MUCH HIGHER then it is, then there is still not enough time for a chimp to evolve into a human... 7 million years is not long enough

He is giving evolution the benefit of the doubt basically...he's upping the known rate tenfold in order to try and get the possibility of major change in the figure of the 7 million years required and it still isnt enough time.

No he's not. He is lowering the known rate by orders of magnitude.

He claims 1 per 10 matings when the truth for humans is about 1,500 per 10 matings. And even that underestimates the actual numbers of mutations because a lot of fertilisations do not carry to term and a portion of those are due to deleterious mutations.

Do you realise that the number of fixed mutations in functional genes that separate us from chimps is under 1,000 and could be as low as 500. Differences like the single amino acid changes that do not affect gene and protein function are irrelevant.

Thats 14 million years of evolution to produce less than 1,000 significant genetic differences and only a portion of these affect phenotype.

 

[Autodidact]

Is it me, or are David M and I on the same wavelength, only he's much more precise?