• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How many lucky rolls of the dice does it take to get a win while gambling? When you figure out that, you'll be close to understanding. But remember natural selection intervenes.

Yeah, let's tear this nonsense "argument" to pieces first. The passive-aggressive Darwinist Barbarian thinks the answer is one.

Here's how his argument goes:

Wheeeeeeee. I won $200 with a single dime into this machine (ignore the 7,064 earlier attempts that yielded nothing).

When your "arguments" are this simple to expose for the nonsense they are, that should be a big clue to you.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It's actually worse than that:

Hooray! The quarter I gambled with was broken and its sharp edges were cutting me. So even though I didn't win with that one, or the 44,646 previous ones, I'm not getting injured by it any more.

EVOLUTION!!! :banana:
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Barbarian observes:
genetic load leads to a loss of fitness unless mitigated, and that de novo genes are produced mostly by mutations of non-coding DNA.
Because the mitigating factors of genetic load don't work, and random mutation+natural selection cannot make de novo genes, it is rational to be skeptical of the claim that all living things we see on earth today evolved from a single common ancestor.

The claimed solution to the loss of fitness from genetic load is natural selection. But natural selection cannot act on a loss of fitness until it appears. However, genetic load occurs before the loss of fitness affects an organism because genetic load is added every generation, even in the most fit examples of a population.

The claimed solution to creating de novo genes is lucky mutations to existing genes. But that ignores both the required changes to make the new function from whatever function the old gene had, and random mutations that are lucky enough to integrate the de novo gene into working code.

Trying to make changes from random mutations, and then hoping those random mutations will integrate the changes into working code is the reason Ev failed. But perhaps you know of a new attempt to model common descent.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Because the mitigating factors of genetic load don't work,

Even many creationist realize they do, and admit as much. Would you like me to show you, again"

random mutation+natural selection cannot make de novo genes

I just showed you an example. Do you think everyone forgot?

it is rational to be skeptical of the claim that all living things we see on earth today evolved from a single common ancestor.

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits that there is a very large body of evidence for common descent. Would you like me to show you that, again?

The claimed solution to the loss of fitness from genetic load is natural selection. But natural selection cannot act on a loss of fitness until it appears.

So your argument is that natural selection can only work on reduced fitness if there is any. Which is like saying that a snow shovel is useless unless it snows.


However, genetic load occurs before the loss of fitness affects an organism

Genetic load is a loss in fitness. I thought you knew.

The claimed solution to creating de novo genes is lucky mutations to existing genes.

As you learned earlier, de novo genes are those that arise from mutations in non-coding DNA. And as you also learned that's only one way it happens. Would you like me to show you that, again?

But that ignores both the required changes to make the new function from whatever function the old gene had,

Remember, a de novo gene had no old gene from which to mutate. It merely was formed by mutation from non-coding DNA.

Trying to make changes from random mutations, and then hoping those random mutations will integrate the changes into working code is the reason Ev failed.

I showed you several computer simulations that accurately demonstrate common descent. Do you think people forgot?

You were able to finally admit that no geneticist said that there is such a thing as devolution. Time to move on and shed some other misconceptions.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Even many creationist realize they do, and admit as much.
None of them.

Would you like me to show you again?

I just showed you an example. Do you think everyone forgot?

Kurt Wise does not say there is a large body of evidence for common descent. Would you like me to show you that, again?

So your argument is that natural selection can only work on reduced fitness if there is any. Which is like saying that a snow shovel is useless unless it snows.

:chuckle: Looks like you didn't think that through at all.

I thought you knew.

Do you think people forgot?

You were able to finally admit that geneticists admit devolution is a problem. Time to move on and shed some other misconceptions.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Would you like me to show you, again
Do you think everyone forgot?
Would you like me to show you that, again?
I thought you knew.
As you learned earlier... And as you also learned... Would you like me to show you that, again?
Remember...
Do you think people forgot?
Time to move on and shed some other misconceptions.
Random mutation+natural selection cannot make de novo genes. As the vast majority of examples show, DNA must break something to improve fitness.

The claimed solution to the loss of fitness from genetic load is natural selection. But natural selection cannot act on a loss of fitness until it appears. But genetic load is not defined as a loss of fitness, but as a loss of function and redundency that will eventually lead to a loss of fitness. When the

The claimed solution to creating de novo genes is lucky mutations to existing DNA unrelated to the function of the de novo gene. But that ignores both the required changes to make the new function from whatever function the old code had, and random mutations that are lucky enough to integrate the de novo gene into working code.

Trying to make changes from random mutations, and then hoping those random mutations will integrate the changes into working code is the reason Ev failed. So far you haven't shown a new attempt at modeling universal common descent. Let us know the name of the program if you find it.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Random mutation+natural selection cannot make de novo genes.

I know you would like to think they cannot, but I showed you that it's a documented fact that they do. You want me to post that, again?

As the vast majority of examples show, DNA must break something to improve fitness.

Or, as you just learned, produce it from non-coding DNA, that is already non-functional.

The claimed solution to the loss of fitness from genetic load is natural selection.

Which even Answers in Genesis acknowledges.

But natural selection cannot act on a loss of fitness until it appears.

You can't fix something until it's broken? Amazing.

But genetic load is not defined as a loss of fitness,

Well, let's take a look...

Definition of genetic load
: the decrease in fitness of the average individual in a population relative to the fittest genotype due to the presence of deleterious genes in the gene pool
First Known Use of genetic load
1950, in the meaning defined above

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genetic load

but as a loss of function

Loss of function is acted upon by natural selection. If you thought about it, you'd probably realize why.

Trying to make changes from random mutations, and then hoping those random mutations will integrate the changes into working code is the reason Ev failed. So far you haven't shown a new attempt at modeling universal common descent.

I showed you several. As you now realize, your assumptions about the nature of genetic load and how natural selection removes it, are completely wrong.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I know you would like to think they cannot... You want me to post that, again?

Or, as you just learned

Which even Answers in Genesis acknowledges.

You can't fix something until it's broken? Amazing.

Well, let's take a look...

Definition of genetic load
: the decrease in fitness of the average individual in a population relative to the fittest genotype due to the presence of deleterious genes in the gene pool
First Known Use of genetic load
1950, in the meaning defined above

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genetic load

Loss of function is acted upon by natural selection. If you thought about it, you'd probably realize why.

As you now realize
Most any example of random mutation improving fitness follows the predicted burning bridge approach as outlined by Michael Behe in Darwin Devolves. Any example claimed to the contrary includes assumptions that have so far been reversed when those assumptions are able to be verified. So, the exmple you claim is just another brick in the wall showing universal common descent is wrong.

Mutations passed to the next generation include mutations to the most fit members of a population. Eventually, the mutations accumulate to a point where it reduces fitness perhaps multiple generations into the future. Those mutations cannot be taken back.

This is why computer models, like the ones you show, don't simulate common descent. Ev attempted to do this, but it failed and there hasn't been any attempt after Ev. Or perhaps there has been so let us know so we can take a look at it.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Most any example of random mutation improving fitness follows the predicted burning bridge approach as outlined by Michael Behe in Darwin Devolves.

Behe has a lot of odd beliefs. It's why he's not taken very seriously by biologists. The observed increases in fitness by favorable mutations has been repeatedly observed. No point in denying the fact.

Behe's belief includes assumptions that have so far been falsified when those assumptions are able to be verified. So, he's merely wrong. If you beliefs require denying observed phenomena, that's a pretty good clue for you.

Mutations passed to the next generation include mutations to the most fit members of a population.

Actually, they aren't passed out, depending on fitness. That's another myth creationists have about mutations.

Eventually, the mutations accumulate to a point where it reduces fitness perhaps multiple generations into the future.

Your belief is contradicted by observed populations,showing increasing fitness over time. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Those mutations cannot be taken back.

They are merely removed by natural selection. Would you like to learn more about how that happens?

This is why computer models, like the ones you show, don't simulate common descent.

I showed you several that do. No point in denying that, either.

But genetic load is not defined as a loss of fitness,

Well, let's take a look...

Definition of genetic load
: the decrease in fitness of the average individual in a population relative to the fittest genotype due to the presence of deleterious genes in the gene pool.

First Known Use of genetic load
1950, in the meaning defined above

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genetic load

But natural selection cannot act on a loss of fitness until it appears.

You can't fix something until it's broken? Amazing.

Loss of function is acted upon by natural selection. If you thought about it, you'd probably realize why.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The observed increases in fitness by favorable mutations has been repeatedly observed. No point in denying the fact.

Darwinists love asserting their ideas as fact.

But Barbarian's beliefs require denying observed phenomena. That's a pretty good clue for everyone.

That's another myth Darwinists have about adaptation.

Your belief is contradicted by observed populations,showing increasing fitness over time.
Nope. Would you like to learn about what you've gotten wrong?

Would you like to learn more about how that happens?

We showed you several times. No point in denying it.

Loss of function is acted upon by natural selection. If you thought about it, you'd probably realize why.

Actually, natural selection can only theoretically work on expressed traits, while "random mutations" would occur in the DNA code.

Hoping that random changes can allow natural selection to work is a little like suggesting that we might generate a better novel by randomly altering the pixels that make up each letter in a Word document.

Hint: Changing one pixel would never do anything to improve a story.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
that's a pretty good clue for you.
Behe keeps stacking up arguments that haven't been answered by the scientific community going back to the mouse trap. So to think they've caught up on his latest book, Darwin Devolves, is a fantasy.

That's another myth creationists have about mutations.
Mutations get passed from one generation to the next, even from the most fit in a population to their progeny.

Would you like to learn about some of them?
Populations can only increase fitness by breaking functions. Those populations can't outcomplete the parent stock in the more common environment, while the parent stock can devolve to the "more fit" population again.

Would you like to learn more about how that happens?
Natural selection cannot act on mutations until they accumulate enough to affect fitness. But mutations accumulate in the fittest members of a population, generation after generation.

No point in denying that, either.
You showed no programs that simulate common descent. Name them if you think you did.

Well, let's take a look...

Definition of genetic load
: the decrease in fitness of the average individual in a population relative to the fittest genotype due to the presence of deleterious genes in the gene pool.

First Known Use of genetic load
1950, in the meaning defined above

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genetic load
Scientists that understand the problem with mutational load like Crow and Sanford define mutational load as affecting even the most fit members of any population.

You can't fix something until it's broken? Amazing.

Loss of function is acted upon by natural selection. If you thought about it, you'd probably realize why.
As mentioned above, mutations that will eventually cause a loss in function are already being passed from generation to generation. Natural selection won't help.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Behe keeps stacking up arguments that haven't been answered by the scientific community going back to the mouse trap.

Even Behe doesn't try that story, any more...

A reducibly complex mousetrap

John H. McDonald
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Delaware

https://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

All the rest are like that. Behe has even admitted that ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science.

Mutations get passed from one generation to the next

Some do, and some don't. For reasons that are completely beyond your ken.

Populations can only increase fitness by breaking functions.

That's a common creationist superstition, but it has no basis in fact. Gene duplication followed by mutation, or de novo gene mutations don't break anything at all. Again, if you were familiar even with high school genetics, this wouldn't puzzle you.

Those populations can't outcomplete the parent stock in the more common environment

Outcompete, you mean? Of course they can. If the new allele makes the population more fit than the previous genome, it will replace the old alleles. Would you like to see some examples?

while the parent stock can devolve to the "more fit" population again.

Remember, you just learned that there is no "devolution." Remember? You insisted that geneticist use the term, but when you were asked to show that, you couldn't find even one case.

Natural selection cannot act on mutations until they accumulate enough to affect fitness.

That word salad means nothing at all. A favorable mutation will immediately increase the fitness of the individual with it. If you thought about it for a moment, I'm sure you could figure out why.

But mutations accumulate in the fittest members of a population, generation after generation.

Favorable ones, or neutral ones do. As you may recall, as soon as they reduce fitness, harmful mutations are removed. You haven't given this much thought, it seems. Many harmful mutations are recessive, which mean that they only affect fitness if the individual has two copies, one from each parent. So long as you don't marry a close relative, the odds of getting two of those are very very small. But here's the interesting thing; animals that normally do interbreed with close relatives have very few harmful recessives. Can you guess why? Think about what we've discussed here.

You showed no programs that simulate common descent.

Everyone saw them. If you want me to look them up again, I'll go do it.

Scientists that understand the problem with mutational load like Crow and Sanford define mutational load as affecting even the most fit members of any population.

It's always there. This is why most populations show a mutation rate that's very close to optimal.

And so far, no one has actually measured an absolute genetic load, because one would have to sum the load of each suboptimal allele, and be able to identify an absolutely optimal allele. This is easy to do in simulations,but in real life, there's a lot of factors beyond anything you've thought about so far.

As mentioned above, mutations that will eventually cause a loss in function are already being passed from generation to generation.

Fortunately, natural selection removes any that actually cause a loss of fitness.

Natural selection won't help.

I know you want to believe that, but the evidence shows that it does. A little common sense might be useful here:


Population Size, Natural Selection and the Genetic Load

J. R. G. TURNER & M. H. WILLIAMSON

Nature volume 218, page700(1968)
How great a genetic load can a population tolerate ? This subject has recently been discussed by several authors1–5. We believe that a most important point can be stated briefly: because most organisms produce far more offspring than are necessary to maintain a constant population density, and because population densities remain, very roughly, constant, many individuals die before they are mature; it does not matter whether they die of starvation, accidents or from genetic ailments; the population can still maintain itself. It is not so much that there is a genetic load which might threaten the species, but that there is an ecological load, resulting from density regulation, which because it must, as Darwin noted, produce natural selection, gives rise to the apparent genetic load. A population will be able to tolerate what seems to us a considerable genetic load, without being, on that account, in any danger of extinction. The genetic load is, for the most part, merely an expression of the fact that not all genotypes are equally viable when the population becomes crowded. Many individuals have to die in the process of density regulation, and if those which die differ genetically from those which survive, we will observe a “genetic load”. This is the crux of the Malthus—Darwin concept of selection. This does not of course apply to genetic conditions which are markedly disabling at all population densities; there must be a decided limit (although a fairly high one, for the dead individuals simply leave more food or space for others, which otherwise would die) to the number of these which a population can contain. We suggest the term “loaded” for this last kind of selection.

 

Right Divider

Body part
Sure you can . . .
Hybridization and duplication of three very similar grasses gave us . . .
ancientvsmodern.jpg
So wheat is still wheat... got it.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Most Darwinists realize you're a pompous retard and an embarrassment to yourself and them, and admit as much. Would you like me to show you, again?
That's a bizarre statement to make. Barb was unpopular with young earth creationists for sure and he ruffled plenty of feathers in that regard but he clearly knew his stuff and was regarded with respect by many here when there was significantly more traffic around this joint. Calling the guy a retard only embarrasses yourself.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
That's a bizarre statement to make. Barb was unpopular with young earth creationists for sure and he ruffled plenty of feathers in that regard but he clearly knew his stuff and was regarded with respect by many here when there was significantly more traffic around this joint. Calling the guy a retard only embarrasses yourself.

As you've just learned, you're his fellow, like-minded retard. Would you like me to show you, again?
 
Top