The assumptions behind evolution?

[Ouroboros]

Here's another poster's thoughts about Mendel's Accountant on another forum: Mendel's Accountant : Creationism - Page 2 • Rational Skepticism Forum

I suspect MA doesn't properly account for all things.

 

[Parsimony]

It is being shown that more is lost than gained in species reproduction.

Give us a source that supplies tested and verifiable evidence for this claim, please.

 

[Ouroboros]

Whether brown bears or polar bears have lost information in the genome or gained it is the question. It is being shown that more is lost than gained in species reproduction. Is all the information in the genome flexible in its design and what part does God as an energizer of life in the cell change it so that actual life and survival can continue in a species.

So what about the evolution of maize to corn? The modern corn has a much longer and more complex (and more genetic expression) than it's ancestral (almost non-edible) ancient maize. What's the explanation to that?

 

[AllanV]

So what about the evolution of maize to corn? The modern corn has a much longer and more complex (and more genetic expression) than it's ancestral (almost non-edible) ancient maize. What's the explanation to that?

That's selection, That can be done now in the hen house or the garden. Would that corn turn into a fish or dog?

 

[AllanV]

Give us a source that supplies tested and verifiable evidence for this claim, please.

Real life.

Modern medicine is changing the model and there is more discrepancy being introduced into the gene pool.

Hybrids and GM will change the food quickly and the stronger more primitive survivor may have difficulties adjusting.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's selection, That can be done now in the hen house or the garden. Would that corn turn into a fish or dog?

I think you missed my point. The DNA is longer and more complex in modern corn than the ancient maize. The actual genes, not just "selection". It's mutations with selection that has produced more variation and more genetic material. Or are you saying that if a species is allowed to be selected (naturally or artificially), then its genetic material and fitness will go up? Well, if that's the case, that would explain why Mendel's Accountant doesn't work then. There's no selection in there. In nature, there's selection happening, and we know for a fact that the maize genome has increased in size.

 

[Ouroboros]

Real life.

Modern medicine is changing the model and there is more discrepancy being introduced into the gene pool.

Can you explain that a bit. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there. Currently, they are changing the model of producing antibiotics. If it's successful, it will be the greatest achievement for evolution. If it fails, then perhaps you have a case against evolution theory, but if it succeeds, evolution not only becomes a science of what happens in nature, but how we can use it to our own benefit.

Hybrids and GM will change the food quickly and the stronger more primitive survivor may have difficulties adjusting.

Hybrids will be used. That's been used for thousands of years. GM will probably go away as a solution. Monsanto has had too costly problems with the BT gene. Especially the root worm evolving to be resistant to the BT.

 

[AllanV]

I think you missed my point. The DNA is longer and more complex in modern corn than the ancient maize. The actual genes, not just "selection". It's mutations with selection that has produced more variation and more genetic material. Or are you saying that if a species is allowed to be selected (naturally or artificially), then its genetic material and fitness will go up? Well, if that's the case, that would explain why Mendel's Accountant doesn't work then. There's no selection in there. In nature, there's selection happening, and we know for a fact that the maize genome has increased in size.

When did the DNA become longer? Did it adjust by itself over time or was there cross pollination.
With poultry care has to be taken otherwise the rate of obvious deformities goes up. With the best selections the birds will be bigger or even smaller. Depends what is required.

The genetic material is different, but is there more or less?
If a group of poultry became inbreed it could have a problem surviving eventually.
It would need a few different groups separated from each other and then introduced. How many groups that would be needed is unknown.

The maize could have crossed with a variety that actually died out. Or it died out itself. This could happen many times. When this happened the maize that died out introduced enough material to ensure the survival of the eventual corn plant.

 

[David M]

John Sanford was an atheist evolutionist who became a theist and then Christian of what type is unknown. He is one of a team and of many others who are unable to explain evolution in view of their own work.

Irrelevant. There are many Christian scientists who can explain evolution. Sanford is not unable to explain evolution, he denies it because it conflicts with his interpretation of scripture.

The program was developed on a mainframe computer. Memory size does limit it. There are different parameters that are set with input data and the program could be made to come out wrong.
The input data is drawn from known tested parameters but it is variation the program is able to deal with.

In which case why can it be trusted when it comes to humans?

The idea of the mouse is being misapplied because there is a paper on the evolutionary assumption it could turn into an elephant.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Whether mice can turn into elephants or not has no bearing on Sanfords model.

If you plug the numbers into Sanfords program for a population of mice it comes out with about the same number of generations as humans before "genetic load" causes extinction.

Considering that mice can breed every 2 months there have been thousands of generations of mice in recent history. According to Sanford the limit of "genetic load" for mice should have been exceeded long ago (remember its over 10,000 generations since 1AD for mice as against circa 150 for humans).

Sanfords model cannot correctly predict what will happen to a population of mice, therefore it cannot model reality. Therefore its predictions about humans are meaningless drivel.

 

[Ouroboros]

When did the DNA become longer? Did it adjust by itself over time or was there cross pollination.

Cross pollination with what? It comes originally from rice. Are you suggesting that cross pollination between two maize breeds would make the DNA longer? I'm not sure that's how it works at all. It's not just pick a bunch of DNA and put it in a blender.

The DNA has become longer over long time, in small increments. That's how it works.

With poultry care has to be taken otherwise the rate of obvious deformities goes up. With the best selections the birds will be bigger or even smaller. Depends what is required.

And it's small changes over several generations. If birds get bigger or smaller would that mean they're less fit or more fit for how they are selected? According to Mendel's Accountant they can't be selected to become better, only worse. Right?

The genetic material is different, but is there more or less?

Sometimes more. Most times not changed much.

If a group of poultry became inbreed it could have a problem surviving eventually.

Only if you have cases of founders effect. Mendel's Accountant seems to be based on a strict founder effect bottleneck, and not much more. I read somewhere there's no example of admixture or drift in it. And I have a feeling epigenetics isn't in there either, nor transposons or retro-transposons or ERVs or ... Also, ecological systems are much more complex. It's not enough to just put a simple culture in one static environment without interactions. Stale water and such...

It would need a few different groups separated from each other and then introduced. How many groups that would be needed is unknown.

Correct. That's something you probably would do, and I suspect the software doesn't do this, but you can correct me on this if I'm wrong.

The maize could have crossed with a variety that actually died out. Or it died out itself. This could happen many times. When this happened the maize that died out introduced enough material to ensure the survival of the eventual corn plant.

So... you're saying that there were some kind of super-maize 50,000 years ago that has stayed almost unchanged until now, and the maize we have from 10,000 years ago somehow had a drastic reduction in gene material? That would contradict what you're saying even more!!! If it's supposed to decrease on a constant basis, how can it do it super-quick for the "wrong" maize we're testing against, but not decrease almost at all for the "right" maize up until our modern corn? It doesn't make sense at all. This would contradict your idea of reducing gene material completely.

 

[AllanV]

Can you explain that a bit. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying there. Currently, they are changing the model of producing antibiotics. If it's successful, it will be the greatest achievement for evolution. If it fails, then perhaps you have a case against evolution theory, but if it succeeds, evolution not only becomes a science of what happens in nature, but how we can use it to our own benefit.


Hybrids will be used. That's been used for thousands of years. GM will probably go away as a solution. Monsanto has had too costly problems with the BT gene. Especially the root worm evolving to be resistant to the BT.

"Modern medicine is changing the model and there is more discrepancy being introduced into the gene pool."

Simply modern medicine allows poor genetic material to survive in a population.
This could be why the choice of multiculturalism has been made by some countries. The benefits are seen.

 

[Ouroboros]

"Modern medicine is changing the model and there is more discrepancy being introduced into the gene pool."

And that means evolution is wrong?

Simply modern medicine allows poor genetic material to survive in a population.

And how does that in any way discredit or refute evolution? I can see that modern medicine allows poor genetic material to survive, but that doesn't change the facts of evolution. It's like arguing something like this: You can cut your finger on a knife, therefore knives aren't sharp. The fact that evolution is true doesn't change with what we do with it or how we're affecting it. Just because modern medicine is allowing more genetic material to exist that in nature would be detrimental, doesn't change that genetic diversity is produced by nature. In fact, many of us would not survive for more than 5 minutes under water. We evolved away from that. We can't survive more than an hour in subzero (or something like that), but we're still here. Just because we're changing the requirements for how humanity survives, and allowing new genetic material to exist that previously would've been deadly, doesn't mean anything to if evolution works or not.

This could be why the choice of multiculturalism has been made by some countries. The benefits are seen.

Sure. It's called admixture. Which the software probably doesn't use at all.

 

[AllanV]

Cross pollination with what? It comes originally from rice. Are you suggesting that cross pollination between two maize breeds would make the DNA longer? I'm not sure that's how it works at all. It's not just pick a bunch of DNA and put it in a blender.

The DNA has become longer over long time, in small increments. That's how it works.


And it's small changes over several generations. If birds get bigger or smaller would that mean they're less fit or more fit for how they are selected? According to Mendel's Accountant they can't be selected to become better, only worse. Right?


Sometimes more. Most times not changed much.


Only if you have cases of founders effect. Mendel's Accountant seems to be based on a strict founder effect bottleneck, and not much more. I read somewhere there's no example of admixture or drift in it. And I have a feeling epigenetics isn't in there either, nor transposons or retro-transposons or ERVs or ... Also, ecological systems are much more complex. It's not enough to just put a simple culture in one static environment without interactions. Stale water and such...


Correct. That's something you probably would do, and I suspect the software doesn't do this, but you can correct me on this if I'm wrong.


So... you're saying that there were some kind of super-maize 50,000 years ago that has stayed almost unchanged until now, and the maize we have from 10,000 years ago somehow had a drastic reduction in gene material? That would contradict what you're saying even more!!! If it's supposed to decrease on a constant basis, how can it do it super-quick for the "wrong" maize we're testing against, but not decrease almost at all for the "right" maize up until our modern corn? It doesn't make sense at all. This would contradict your idea of reducing gene material completely.

As an evolutionist how can you say the maize came from rice.

How ever the rice got there in the first place there must have been a divergence of the type into possibly many groups. Environment would be effective in adaption and then genetic material would be shared back.

Even the early settlers had a low yielding corn and wheat that have been improved only recently.

 

[gnostic]

That's selection, That can be done now in the hen house or the garden. Would that corn turn into a fish or dog?

That's a god's-awful-ignorant-waddle-of-BS that I've ever heard.

No one has the least understanding of evolution, and especially no biologists have say that corn can turn into fish or dog. It is this sort of misinformation and strawman coming from creationists, that make themselves into total fools.

I did not read ouroboros' post about anything about "dog" or "fish". He was talking about maizes and corns. No one claim that corn can turn into dog or fish.

If you having any self respect, then you would use his example of maize evolving into corn to refute his claim, and not make up something no one has claim.

Creationists sprout all sort of garbage that only make them ridiculous and out-of-touch with reality. Cereal or vegetable can't turn into animal. Dog can't turn into cat or vice versa. And you can't have hybrid of crocodile and duck. These are only possible in cartoons, CGI or over-imaginative delusions. But in reality, not of this could possibly happen.

If there was "dislike" link or button for your post, I would put click on it, for making up such outrageous claim.

 

[Ouroboros]

As an evolutionist how can you say the maize came from rice.

If I remember right, maize came from rice. I have to look it up. I could be wrong.

How ever the rice got there in the first place there must have been a divergence of the type into possibly many groups. Environment would be effective in adaption and then genetic material would be shared back.

Rice came from something else. Yes.

Even the early settlers had a low yielding corn and wheat that have been improved only recently.

We're talking about a very long time ago, before settlers. Maize existed before humans started to farm it, if I understand it right.

 

[AllanV]

Irrelevant. There are many Christian scientists who can explain evolution. Sanford is not unable to explain evolution, he denies it because it conflicts with his interpretation of scripture.
In which case why can it be trusted when it comes to humans?

This makes no sense whatsoever. Whether mice can turn into elephants or not has no bearing on Sanfords model.

If you plug the numbers into Sanfords program for a population of mice it comes out with about the same number of generations as humans before "genetic load" causes extinction.

Considering that mice can breed every 2 months there have been thousands of generations of mice in recent history. According to Sanford the limit of "genetic load" for mice should have been exceeded long ago (remember its over 10,000 generations since 1AD for mice as against circa 150 for humans).

Sanfords model cannot correctly predict what will happen to a population of mice, therefore it cannot model reality. Therefore its predictions about humans are meaningless drivel.

In Dr John Sanfords interview he said it is in the area just above the sub atomic where natural environment is not seen at all where the problems with evolution are evident.

 

[AllanV]

If I remember right, maize came from rice. I have to look it up. I could be wrong.


Rice came from something else. Yes.


We're talking about a very long time ago, before settlers. Maize existed before humans started to farm it, if I understand it right.

Would environmental adaption in diverging groups eventually recombine and add material?

 

[Ouroboros]

Would environmental adaption in diverging groups eventually recombine and add material?

Genetic material is added through duplication errors in a group or retro-transposons.

 

[AllanV]

Genetic material is added through duplication errors in a group or retro-transposons.

For maize it is 49% to 78% of the genome that is made up of retrotransposons.

This is at the level where the pressure of environment would send a signal to the cell within an organism to be changed. The organism has a mind of a type for its survival.

God is right there in this.

There is an adaption possible, that is induced by the mind in a human, that can change the point of reference from the biology. The human has an imaginative inventive mind that produces conflict and the way to design and implement a resolution. Instead of personal survival of the ego and self there is a change away from this.

The scriptures are less about religion but an adaption toward a new nature that will lead to immortality.

There is an analogy in the two cases, I understand and have experienced the mind and nature change for a short period. It needs to be longer.

 

[shawn001]

It's a case of not caring about evolution theory. Evolution theory is found to be boring, regardless if it is true or not. A case of only being interested in how things are created in the universe, how things are chosen. Because when you look in terms of how things are chosen, then you have the direct link to the spirit which chooses, which is somewhat emotionally meaningful.

"]It's a case of not caring about evolution theory. Evolution theory is found to be boring, regardless if it is true or not."

LOL, That one is funny and shows a total lack of understanding on evolution.

“I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.”
― Richard P. Feynman