Some questions about evolution (genetics etc) and possible implications for creationism

[TagliatelliMonster]

Um, ok, do then how does everything evolve from a single celled organism?

1. survive
2. reproduce
3. mutate
4. repeat

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's only mechanism is blind chance.

Is it "blind chance" that polar bears have white fur while grizzly's that live in the woords are brown?

 

[Yerda]

Statistically impossible.

If that was the case a single paper could bring down the entire field.

First, tell us the rate of duplication necessary, and how many duplicated but silenced genes we would expect to see in a given genome, and the needed rate of turning on and off, and the statistical possiblity of a new function arising in the silenced gene, and how this new function will be integrated into the already complex genome of the organism, and the rate at which the ‘junk’ DNA would be expected to be lost to genetic drift or through natural selection

Theses are interesting questions. Perhaps you could start a thread on the topic.

This wiki page is worth looking at:

Gene duplication - Wikipedia

Gene duplication is usually a negative, not a positive. The whole theory has holes an elephant can walk through.

I'm sure they often are. The theory isn't resting on the assumption that they are generally beneficial, though.

 

[wellwisher]

Biology cataloging puts too much emphasis on the shell; facade, of living creatures, even though the brain and consciousness is what drives both natural and artificial selection. If you consider birds, the female bird's selection of her mate is processed by her brain. The male's display of song and dance is processed by his brain. Building nests and finding food, together or separate, is processed by both brains. Biology fixates on the final shell and not the mechanism of consciousness that interfaces the shell for selection.

The bible is consistent with the brain; operating system, of humans changing about 6000 years ago. It says free will and choice appear and humans become above the animals; updated from a previous operating system. The shell stilled would look the same, but new behavior started; civilization, which required changes that challenged eons of instinct; wandering and gathering. Farming, for example, critical to civilization, ties one to a single place, and eons of wandering are repressed.

In the bible Cain kills Abel. Cain was a farmer and Abel was a herder of animals; when Cain kills Abel farming supersedes migratory herding; new operating system appears in Cain. God then banishes Cain, who then complains to God that whomever shall come upon him will kill him. The question I have is, who were these whomever ,if there was only Adam, Eve and Cain at that time? It was the pre-humans with the old operating system; migratory herders. God gives Cain a symbol; talisman for protection. Cain goes on to breed with the pre-humans; genetic transfer.

If you look at humans, we all have human nature; similar operating system and software. This is true of all races. But we come in all shapes, sizes and colors. One operating system can have many facade expressions. If we were birds, with the same outward differences, biology would classified humans as hundreds of subspecies. This would be woke taboo. The brain can create this differences with the same parental DNA.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If a mutation makes it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce, then it is more likely to survive and reproduce.

It's that simple.

Lol, no it isn't. It has to be carried on. Just because it's beneficial in some sense doesn't mean it will cause survival.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If a canine would produce a giraffe, evolution theory would be disproven.

But one has to transition into another regardless of how many transitional species are in between. Makes no difference if you claim common ancestor it's the same thing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Lol, no it isn't. It has to be carried on. Just because it's beneficial in some sense doesn't mean it will cause survival.

What's deemed "beneficial" in this context is a mutation which IMPROVES survivability. So your claim here makes no sense. What you're saying is basically "just because a mutation improves survivability doesn't mean it will improve survivability".

Do you wish to claim that a mutation cannot possibly result in an increased chance of survival and reproduction?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Is it "blind chance" that polar bears have white fur while grizzly's that live in the woords are brown?

That's adaptation. Not macro evolution.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So what are you saying?

That if he is unable to make a 747 out of a bicycle, then biological evolution is wrong?

Are you being serious?

He made the claim that it's possible. I'm just asking for proof. He doesn't have to do it real, just on a computer screen. Rearrange the parts of a unicycle to turn it into a jet with no extra parts added.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lol, no it isn't. It has to be carried on. Just because it's beneficial in some sense doesn't mean it will cause survival.

Read the post you are replying to.
It says that it becomes more LIKELY to survive.
Not that it definitely WILL survive.


Right out the gates and not considering anything else, every organism has the same odds of surviving and reproducing.

But because there is genetic variation, some have better odds then others.
Some have very low odds. Others have very high odds.
The immediate environment also plays a role. Individuals living near fertile coasts will generally find it easier then those on a barren volcano flank.

How can you honestly try and argue this simple fact?

If it's completely "blind and random", then all individuals should have the exact same odds.
But this is not the case at all.

Natural selection will favor those with the best odds. Inevitably.
Simple probability. Those things that have better odds of occurring, will occur more often.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But one has to transition into another regardless of how many transitional species are in between. Makes no difference if you claim common ancestor it's the same thing.

I love you how
1. ignored the rest of the posts and choose to respond to a footnote point instead

2. didn't even understand the footnote point. No, one does not "have to transition" to another. In evolution, this does not happen! Speciation is a vertical process. The descendants of mammals, will be mammals and subspecies of mammals - which will still be mammals. The descendants of canines will be canines and subspecies thereof - which will still be canines.

In evolution, canines do not evolve into non-canines.
If canines evolve into non-canines, then that would be a violation of the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution theory and it would effectively be demonstrated false.

In evolution, species never outgrow their ancestry.

This is why humans are "still" primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes.
You carry your ancestry within you both genetically as well as anatomically and you can not outgrow it.

The reason why is explained in the parts of the post you completely ignored, where I explain how DNA is inherited by off spring and how that forms a nested hierarchy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's adaptation. Not macro evolution.

I asked you in another post what it is that you mean by "macro evolution".

Now I need to ask again.
I get you don't believe it happens. I'm just asking you what you mean by it.

I have a feeling that I will agree with you that what you mean by it, indeed doesn't happen. Nor will it be something evolution says would happen.

But surprise me. Please clarify.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's adaptation. Not macro evolution.

Which creationist site have you been getting this bilge from?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He made the claim that it's possible. I'm just asking for proof. He doesn't have to do it real, just on a computer screen. Rearrange the parts of a unicycle to turn it into a jet with no extra parts added.

This is intellectual dishonesty to boot. He never said that. The bolded part is your own addition.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's adaptation. Not macro evolution.

Define "macro evolution", because I'm fairly certain you don't know what it actually means.

 

[shunyadragon]

Lol, no it isn't. It has to be carried on. Just because it's beneficial in some sense doesn't mean it will cause survival.

Yes it does in Natural Selection. IF the Natural Selection does not lead to the survival of the offspring than the species does not survive.

You need to get a decent science education instead of being on auto pilot with an ancient religious agenda.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes it does in Natural Selection. IF the Natural Selection does not lead to the survival of the offspring than the species does not survive.

You need to get a decent science education instead of being on auto pilot with an ancient religious agenda.

You have not answered anything, you only keep repeating " you're wrong. " Kinda pointless.

 

[Wildswanderer]

This is intellectual dishonesty to boot. He never said that. The bolded part is your own addition.

I'm pretty sure a jet doesn't have any unicycle parts in it, but regardless, he knew exactly what I meant when he made the claim.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Which creationist site have you been getting this bilge from?

Adaptation is possible because of the information already present. It's not change to a different kind of animal. A raccoon has thicker fur the further north you go, for example. That's not what creationists mean by " evolution."

 

[SkepticThinker]

Adaptation is possible because of the information already present. It's not change to a different kind of animal. A raccoon has thicker fur the further north you go, for example. That's not what creationists mean by " evolution."

Which creationist site have you been getting this bilge from?