Just Accidental?

[Polymath257]

It's funny to see you describe it that way, because I used to describe it as like going to the zoo and poking at the animals just to see how they react. Here, we find some creationists and confront them with information and data that directly conflicts with their religious beliefs, just to see how they react. When a creationist claims no one has ever seen one species evolve into another, a bunch of us science advocates trip all over each other to post documented cases of speciation. Why? There's at least some part of it that's all about wanting to see just what stupid excuse they're going to make up to make it go away.

It's pretty entertaining.

Zoos are OK, but the specimens are breeding way too fast!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Revealed"...."discovered"....bit pedantic there aren't we?

All that creation tells us has been 'revealed' progressively, just as the Creator intended. There is nothing new.....only yet to be revealed or discovered. This life was meant to be a journey of endless discovery....but not just for a privileged few who, through their genetics might possess a greater brain capacity or interest in science than others. All humans were created in the image of their Maker, with the promise of perfect intellect and reasoning ability, and a thirst for knowledge....but imperfection sidetracked all that temporarily at the beginning......I believe we will get back to what the Creator intended soon enough. That is the Bible's message.



The laws you mention did not come out of nowhere. All laws have to have a law maker who had a purpose in creating those laws in the first place. Purpose requires intelligence. "Nothing comes from nothing"....except in evolutionary science. There never was "outside intervention changing the way that the molecules interact" because all the laws were already in place long before man arrived. He simply discovered what had already existed for eons....he didn't invent them, or the principles by which they operate....and I don't think to this day, that science is even close to fully understanding any of them.



The evidence for adaptation is there for all to see....what is missing is the evidence that takes us out of the realms of adaptation and into the make-believe world of macro-evolution....that is where fact turns to fantasy. Science blurs that line so well, that people don't seem to notice that evidence for one, in no way produces evidence for the other. That is an assumption...NOT to be confused with a fact.



Actually, only the first three are problems of development.....the others are clearly problems of genetic mutation. But even the propensity to have twins can be genetically inherited. When those kinds of mutations happen, reproduction is most unlikely. Mutations are almost always detrimental...NOT beneficial.

Can you name me some "beneficial mutations" that changed the human race to the point of enhancing their lives significantly?
Then can you PROVE that they were in fact "accidental" and not "designed" as adaptive to a changing environment?

When you do a search on human genetic mutations it is very interesting to see what comes up as the most common genetically inherited conditions.

The Most Common Human Genetic Mutations And Disorders – Taboo News

I have three of those conditions in my immediate family, two of them are very serious, hence my interest in genetically inherited conditions.



Neutral means what?
According to one definition.....
"Neutral mutations are changes in DNA sequence that are neither beneficial nor detrimental to the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce. In population genetics, mutations in which natural selection does not affect the spread of the mutation in a species are termed neutral mutations."

So all these "neutral mutations" basically did nothing to benefit or harm those who received that genetic information? I assume that they were mostly cosmetic.....much the same as we see in examples of adaptation.

"The most important characteristic of a neutral mutation is that it does not alter the survival of the organism but simply alters its appearance or structure in some way. Neutral mutations are the most frequently observed type of genetic mutation. However, because they have neither a positive or negative effect on the survival of the species, they tend to disappear over time."

What is an example of a neutral mutation?



And science seems to have a problem with what is a provable fact, and what is an assumption based on a biased interpretation of evidence to promote their theory. The science "pots" are so busy pointing fingers at the "kettles" that they fail to see how "black" they are themselves.

" Mutations are almost always detrimental...NOT beneficial."

Yes, no way around this. Coupled with the need for bottlenecked gene pools to allow any significant change emerging, it's one major paradox of the theory.

i.e. you need a vast number of rolls of the dice to produce any significant design improvement by chance, - there is no longer much dispute about this -
but this lucky mistake also has to appear in a small enough population to have any impact. Add to this the ever shrinking maximum time scales the fossil record allows for, down to mere thousands of generations for complete species transformations... this has scientists of all stripes looking for a better explanation than luck, the math just doesn't support it any more.

I am as capable as anyone else with a modicum of common sense to see through the lingo to the real fact that evolutionary science has no facts. They pretend to, and make it all sound very convincing until you read what they actually say...then the whole ball game changes. Bullying tactics are often used to make sure that science students understand that "only unintelligent people believe in creation". They say they have "overwhelming evidence" that their theory is true.....but they don't. They spout assumptions and educated guesses as if they were proven facts...but they are not.

True, I think the vast majority of people are perfectly rational and capable of critical thought on both sides. This is a fascinating but inherently speculative field, the wise man knows himself a fool here- any theory that lays claim to intellectual superiority or authority of consensus, is always red flag in science.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, no way around this. Coupled with the need for bottlenecked gene pools to allow any significant change emerging, it's one major paradox of the theory.

i.e. you need a vast number of rolls of the dice to produce any significant design improvement by chance, - there is no longer much dispute about this -
but this lucky mistake also has to appear in a small enough population to have any impact. Add to this the ever shrinking maximum time scales the fossil record allows for, down to mere thousands of generations for complete species transformations... this has scientists of all stripes looking for a better explanation than luck, the math just doesn't support it any more.

Please present this math, then.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you name me some "beneficial mutations" that changed the human race to the point of enhancing their lives significantly?
Then can you PROVE that they were in fact "accidental" and not "designed" as adaptive to a changing environment?

About 10,000 years ago when the domestication of goats began the dairy consumption of humans, a mutation for lactose tolerance in adults appeared first in Turkey, and than over time dominated the people of Europe and Eurasia where dairy agriculture became widespread. Before this lactose intolerance and milk allergies was the norm for all humanity, which made the adult consumption of milk products difficult if not dangerous for many if not most humans. Since than separate mutations have occurred in other populations of the world to reduce lactose intolerance, but not as effective as the Eurasian mutation.

From: The Mysterious, Mutant, Civilizing Power of Milk

"For the first few years of his life, he would take his nourishment from Eve's breast. Once he reached about 4 or 5 years old, his body would begin to slow its production of lactase, the enzyme that allows mammals to digest the lactose in milk. Thereafter, nursing or drinking another animal's milk would have given the little hell-raiser stomach cramps and potentially life-threatening diarrhea; in the absence of lactase, lactose simply rots in the guts. With Cain weaned, Abel could claim more of his mother's attention and all of her milk. This kept a lid on sibling rivalry—though it didn't quell the animus between these particular sibs—while allowing women to bear more young. The pattern was the same for all mammals: At the end of infancy, we became lactose-intolerant for life.

. . . around 10,000 B.C., this began to change. A genetic mutation appeared, somewhere near modern-day Turkey, that jammed the lactase-production gene permanently in the “on” position. The original mutant was probably a male who passed the gene on to his children. People carrying the mutation could drink milk their entire lives. Genomic analyses have shown that within a few thousand years, at a rate that evolutionary biologists had thought impossibly rapid, this mutation spread throughout Eurasia, to Great Britain, Scandinavia, the Mediterranean, India and all points in between, stopping only at the Himalayas. Independently, other mutations for lactose tolerance arose in Africa and the Middle East, though not in the Americas, Australia, or the Far East.

In an evolutionary eye-blink, 80 percent of Europeans became milk-drinkers; in some populations, the proportion is close to 100 percent. (Though globally, lactose intolerance is the norm; around two-thirds of humans cannot drink milk in adulthood.) "

 

[Deeje]

About 10,000 years ago when the domestication of goats began the dairy consumption of humans, a mutation for lactose tolerance in adults appeared first in Turkey, and than over time dominated the people of Europe and Eurasia where dairy agriculture became widespread. Before this lactose intolerance and milk allergies was the norm for all humanity, which made the adult consumption of milk products difficult if not dangerous for many if not most humans. Since than separate mutations have occurred in other populations of the world to reduce lactose intolerance, but not as effective as the Eurasian mutation......

In an evolutionary eye-blink, 80 percent of Europeans became milk-drinkers; in some populations, the proportion is close to 100 percent. (Though globally, lactose intolerance is the norm; around two-thirds of humans cannot drink milk in adulthood.) "

Or how about this....?

"Lactose intolerance is when the body does not produce enough lactase to break down lactose, a sugar found in milk and many other milk derived dairy products.


The enzyme responsible for breaking down lactose is lactase, an enzyme found on the wall of the intestines. Lactase breaks down lactose (the sugar found in milk) into galactose and glucose. The activity of lactase becomes reduced after breastfeeding, at that point the body no longer needs as much lactase. Not to mention a human mothers milk is much different from the milk of a cow.


The reduction of lactase activity after infancy is a genetically programmed event. Approximately 75 % of Earths population is lactose intolerant for a reason, because it’s perfectly natural.


The statistics vary from race to race and country to country but overall they show an abnormal amount of individuals who qualify. In some Asian countries, 90 percent of the population is lactose intolerant.


Interestingly, we are the only species on the planet that drinks milk from another species. Since lactase’s only function is the digestion of lactose in milk, most mammal species experience a dramatic reduction in the activity of the enzyme after weaning. Lactase persistence in humans has evolved as an adaptation to the consumption of non-human milk and dairy products consumed beyond infancy. Our diet has changed a lot, and as a result some of our genes have adapted, but it’s not an easy process. This is why most humans are lactose intolerant.


Every other species weans and then never drinks milk again for the rest of their lives, and because of that they don’t have an enzyme to break down the sugar in milk. But during human evolution, some humans experienced a mutation in the LTC gene, the lactase gene, these mutations allow us to process lactose as adults. With over 75 percent of humans on the planet unable to properly process it, it is evidence enough that we are not doing what is natural and in accordance with our bodies."

Most Human Beings Are Lactose Intolerant: Here’s Why

So how is this "adaptation" life altering for the human species? How is it proving that humans as a species evolved simply because we demonstrate adaptive changes like any other species?

There is no argument concerning adaptation.....we see it with our own eyes and it can be produced in a lab..... but how does this in any way demonstrate that macro-evolution ever happened?

 

[Jose Fly]

Zoos are OK, but the specimens are breeding way too fast!

Well, the good news is that polling shows we're winning the day, with a majority of Americans being "evolutionists". And when it comes to millennials, they're pretty much in line with the rest of the developed world.

Reality usually wins out.

 

[Jose Fly]

Please present this math, then.

If you actually get anything close to it, I will be completely stunned.

 

[shunyadragon]

Or how about this....?

"Lactose intolerance is when the body does not produce enough lactase to break down lactose, a sugar found in milk and many other milk derived dairy products.


The enzyme responsible for breaking down lactose is lactase, an enzyme found on the wall of the intestines. Lactase breaks down lactose (the sugar found in milk) into galactose and glucose. The activity of lactase becomes reduced after breastfeeding, at that point the body no longer needs as much lactase. Not to mention a human mothers milk is much different from the milk of a cow.


The reduction of lactase activity after infancy is a genetically programmed event. Approximately 75 % of Earths population is lactose intolerant for a reason, because it’s perfectly natural.


The statistics vary from race to race and country to country but overall they show an abnormal amount of individuals who qualify. In some Asian countries, 90 percent of the population is lactose intolerant.


Interestingly, we are the only species on the planet that drinks milk from another species. Since lactase’s only function is the digestion of lactose in milk, most mammal species experience a dramatic reduction in the activity of the enzyme after weaning. Lactase persistence in humans has evolved as an adaptation to the consumption of non-human milk and dairy products consumed beyond infancy. Our diet has changed a lot, and as a result some of our genes have adapted, but it’s not an easy process. This is why most humans are lactose intolerant.


Every other species weans and then never drinks milk again for the rest of their lives, and because of that they don’t have an enzyme to break down the sugar in milk. But during human evolution, some humans experienced a mutation in the LTC gene, the lactase gene, these mutations allow us to process lactose as adults. With over 75 percent of humans on the planet unable to properly process it, it is evidence enough that we are not doing what is natural and in accordance with our bodies."

Most Human Beings Are Lactose Intolerant: Here’s Why

So how is this "adaptation" life altering for the human species? How is it proving that humans as a species evolved simply because we demonstrate adaptive changes like any other species?

There is no argument concerning adaptation.....we see it with our own eyes and it can be produced in a lab..... but how does this in any way demonstrate that macro-evolution ever happened?

The mutation in Eurasia made 80% of the people lactose tolerant as adults, which is beneficial.
You did not ask about macro evolution. You asked for . . .

"Can you name me some "beneficial mutations" that changed the human race to the point of enhancing their lives significantly?
Then can you PROVE that they were in fact "accidental" and not "designed" as adaptive to a changing environment?"

Nothing here of course is accidental in evolution, and science does not prove anything, but nonetheless I provided what you asked for!

Still waiting for you to respond on some issues you are playing the Three Stooges, Duck, Bob and Weasel.

 

[Polymath257]

Or how about this....?

"Lactose intolerance is when the body does not produce enough lactase to break down lactose, a sugar found in milk and many other milk derived dairy products.


The enzyme responsible for breaking down lactose is lactase, an enzyme found on the wall of the intestines. Lactase breaks down lactose (the sugar found in milk) into galactose and glucose. The activity of lactase becomes reduced after breastfeeding, at that point the body no longer needs as much lactase. Not to mention a human mothers milk is much different from the milk of a cow.


The reduction of lactase activity after infancy is a genetically programmed event. Approximately 75 % of Earths population is lactose intolerant for a reason, because it’s perfectly natural.


The statistics vary from race to race and country to country but overall they show an abnormal amount of individuals who qualify. In some Asian countries, 90 percent of the population is lactose intolerant.


Interestingly, we are the only species on the planet that drinks milk from another species. Since lactase’s only function is the digestion of lactose in milk, most mammal species experience a dramatic reduction in the activity of the enzyme after weaning. Lactase persistence in humans has evolved as an adaptation to the consumption of non-human milk and dairy products consumed beyond infancy. Our diet has changed a lot, and as a result some of our genes have adapted, but it’s not an easy process. This is why most humans are lactose intolerant.


Every other species weans and then never drinks milk again for the rest of their lives, and because of that they don’t have an enzyme to break down the sugar in milk. But during human evolution, some humans experienced a mutation in the LTC gene, the lactase gene, these mutations allow us to process lactose as adults. With over 75 percent of humans on the planet unable to properly process it, it is evidence enough that we are not doing what is natural and in accordance with our bodies."

Most Human Beings Are Lactose Intolerant: Here’s Why

So how is this "adaptation" life altering for the human species? How is it proving that humans as a species evolved simply because we demonstrate adaptive changes like any other species?

There is no argument concerning adaptation.....we see it with our own eyes and it can be produced in a lab..... but how does this in any way demonstrate that macro-evolution ever happened?

You realize that this was a mutation, right? And that mutation increased significantly the nutritional health of those who have it, right? So it was NOT part of the variations within the human species at one point and now it is.

So, you have an example of a beneficial mutation. Remember that to be beneficial *only* means that it is so in the particular environment.

So can you at least admiit that there has been a beneficial mutation?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So how is this "adaptation" life altering for the human species? How is it proving that humans as a species evolved simply because we demonstrate adaptive changes like any other species?

There is no argument concerning adaptation.....we see it with our own eyes and it can be produced in a lab..... but how does this in any way demonstrate that macro-evolution ever happened?

Why are you still asking this?

 

[Deeje]

Well, the good news is that polling shows we're winning the day, with a majority of Americans being "evolutionists". And when it comes to millennials, they're pretty much in line with the rest of the developed world.

According to one of your own, (Jerry Coyne in a video I watched recently,) the majority of Americans don't believe in evolution, so they must therefore be "dumb".

Who wants to be considered the village idiot?

This was interesting.....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfa...on-pew-and-scientific-consensus/#f507f4f6a660

John Farrell concludes his article on "evolution-pew and scientific-consensus" by saying....

"It's just silly to think that the experience of getting a telephone call from a faceless pollster asking strange questions about matters one has never considered before can be treated as giving us insight into the reactions such conditions would be likely to produce."

He's got a point.

Who really believes polls?

Reality usually wins out.

Be careful of reality...sometimes it bites.

LOL

 

[Deeje]

You realize that this was a mutation, right? And that mutation increased significantly the nutritional health of those who have it, right? So it was NOT part of the variations within the human species at one point and now it is.

So, you have an example of a beneficial mutation. Remember that to be beneficial *only* means that it is so in the particular environment.

So can you at least admiit that there has been a beneficial mutation?

Adaptation is a programmed response in all living things. I moved from the city to the mountains some years ago. My city-bred dogs felt the cold quite badly for a few years, but then I noticed that they had grown extra fur on their bellies and their coats were thicker. They were 'adapting' to a colder climate. They were not evolving.

If you want to call these adaptations "beneficial mutations" then you are free to do so. But using the examples of beneficial adaptations, such as lactose tolerance, in no way supports the concept of macro-evolution.

 

[Deeje]

So how is this "adaptation" life altering for the human species? How is it proving that humans as a species evolved simply because we demonstrate adaptive changes like any other species?

There is no argument concerning adaptation.....we see it with our own eyes and it can be produced in a lab..... but how does this in any way demonstrate that macro-evolution ever happened?

Why are you still asking this?

Because no one has provided any real proof that evolution ever took place. Science has a faith based belief system, just like I have.

 

[Sapiens]

Because no one has provided any real proof that evolution ever took place. Science has a faith based belief system, just like I have.

Science has an evidence based system, religion has a faith based system, I am amazed that you still fail to grasp the difference.

 

[Deeje]

Science has an evidence based system, religion has a faith based system, I am amazed that you still fail to grasp the difference.

I have yet to see any real evidence that is not just educated guesses and wishful thinking. Suggestions are not facts. "Might have" and "could have" don't mean "must have".

Show us real evidence that does not require faith or belief.....? Show us one creature morphing into another over millions of years in all the evolutionary steps provided in the fossil record. If you can't then you have as much of a faith based system of beliefs as I do.

 

[Polymath257]

Adaptation is a programmed response in all living things. I moved from the city to the mountains some years ago. My city-bred dogs felt the cold quite badly for a few years, but then I noticed that they had grown extra fur on their bellies and their coats were thicker. They were 'adapting' to a colder climate. They were not evolving.

If you want to call these adaptations "beneficial mutations" then you are free to do so. But using the examples of beneficial adaptations, such as lactose tolerance, in no way supports the concept of macro-evolution.

Wow. You really think that is what we have been talking about?

There is a difference between 'adaptations' that happen over the course of a lifetime, which are NOT genetic changes and even what you call 'micor-evolution'. No, the 'adpatation' to the cold you mentioned is NOT a beneficial mutation. It is not genetic. It happens in a single individual.

Yes, lactose tolerance *is* a mutation. It is genetic. It isn't a change in a single individual in their own lifetime, but is a change in the genetics between generations. It is also beneficial in an environment where milk with lactose is consumed. So it is a beneficial mutation.

It seems that you have a very distorted concept of what evolution actually claims. No single individual is changing to another species in their lifetime. Instead, it is a genetic change in populations over many generations.

 

[Polymath257]

I have yet to see any real evidence that is not just educated guesses and wishful thinking. Suggestions are not facts. "Might have" and "could have" don't mean "must have".

Show us real evidence that does not require faith or belief.....? Show us one creature morphing into another over millions of years in all the evolutionary steps provided in the fossil record. If you can't then you have as much of a faith based system of beliefs as I do.

To have *all* the steps would require fossils from every generation. That simply won't happen, nor is it necessary to know the the changes happened over time.

Next, you will never completely know whether a particular fossil is in the direct line or a side branch. Since evolution usually happens when there is an 'adaptive radiation' and several related species are produced (think Darwin'w finches), it will never be 100% clear whether we got a direct ancestor or not, especially at the species level. It usually *is* quite clear what the relationships are at the level of genus. And that is quite enough to show that species change over time, which is what the term 'evolution' means.

What you are asking for is similar to having a picture of a person every 5 years of their life and complaining that we don't *really* know what happened every year. It isn't a matter of faith that the person changed in the years between the pictures.

In the fossil record, we have individual fossils showing the changes over many generations. You claim it is faith and speculation if we don't have a fossil for every 10,000 years. Sorry, but that isn't a reasonable requirement, nor is it necessary to establish the case.

 

[shunyadragon]

According to one of your own, (Jerry Coyne in a video I watched recently,) the majority of Americans don't believe in evolution, so they must therefore be "dumb".

Who wants to be considered the village idiot?

Apparently the majority of Americans want to live in voluntary ignorance, and remain village idiots, how deplorable.

This was interesting.....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfa...on-pew-and-scientific-consensus/#f507f4f6a660

John Farrell concludes his article on "evolution-pew and scientific-consensus" by saying....

"It's just silly to think that the experience of getting a telephone call from a faceless pollster asking strange questions about matters one has never considered before can be treated as giving us insight into the reactions such conditions would be likely to produce."

He's got a point.

Who really believes polls?

It is not just the polls, and there are other wide spread factors that support the poll results. Many churches teach fundamentalist Creationism as the doctrine of the church, for example: LDS, Seventh Day Adventists, and many Baptist Protestant denominations and their Theological colleges, it is the reality when many school boards and local and state legislatures passed laws supporting the option of fundamentalist Creationism in recent years. The people have had to appeal to the court system to strike down these laws and other legislation. The current Vice-President and many if not most of Trump's cabinet believe in fundamentalist Creationism.

[quoite]

Be careful of reality...sometimes it bites.

LOL[/QUOTE]

In this case the over whelming evidence bites back!!!!

 

[shunyadragon]

Because no one has provided any real proof that evolution ever took place. Science has a faith based belief system, just like I have.

Fortunately science does not prove anything, but the overwhelming objective verifiable evidence falsifies the science of evolution as the only possible explanation based don the evidence.

Your faith based belief is based on Babylonian mythology.

There are a number of specific questions I posed to you concerning your outrageous assertions, and you have avoiding answering them.

 

[Darkstorn]

I have yet to see any real evidence that is not just educated guesses and wishful thinking. Suggestions are not facts. "Might have" and "could have" don't mean "must have".

In your opinion. By that i mean you should have said "I have yet to see any real evidence that is not just educated guesses and wishful thinking, in my opinion."

Otherwise it's a factually incorrect statement. You have seen real evidence, any you haven't shown to anyone that guesses and wishful thinking are involved. You have not shown it to be true. You have made an empty assertion that only downplays your ability.

Because the only other option is that you're incapable of understanding it, meaning: You can't see evidence if you can't understand it. I think you're arguing from a much lower level than your opposition, and it's sad that you imagine it to be the other way around.

You can't possibly think you're being smart with your ignorance.

You also keep saying that "something is" instead of "something might be." But the difference is, you don't actually use evidence. You just use an empty assertion. You say something is, and you don't follow up. You then make a dishonest argument that there is no evidence to discount your claim, even though there is.

Even if in your mind evolution cannot be "proven" to be right, your POSTS CAN BE PROVEN WRONG. And they have been proven wrong.

You use dishonesty, lies, faulty logic, incomplete conclusions and diversion. When something DOES get too hard for you: You do eventually end up giving the argument up, taking a break, then resuming the thread imagining that the earlier exchanges never took place, and then just repeating the same claims that were already proven false earlier. It's tiresome, and you'll NEVER get your agenda across with this level of debating.

Evidence has been given, and shown. It's been proven that this is the case: This thread stands as testament to it. You cannot possibly imagine that just because it's this long, some people haven't read all of it. I have.

By your admission you are either a liar, or you are blind. Which is it? There's proof that you have been given evidence, and even that you might have actually read it. You make the claim that you haven't seen any. So are you blind? Or are you a liar?