Creation vs. Evolution

[alwight]

No! You can't have a whole species evolve with the same mutation and say a member of it has a mutation that enables it to produce more offspring than the other members with out that mutation. You can't have it both ways.

--Dave

Nevertheless Dave species evolve not individuals, there will never be a point in any fossil record at least where it can be demonstrated that one particular individual has a specific advantage that the others don't have. Which is why I think you knew it couldn't be rationally and factually responded to, you only want to create areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(Apology due to Douglas Adams I think.)

 

[DFT_Dave]

Nevertheless Dave species evolve not individuals, there will never be a point in any fossil record at least where it can be demonstrated that one particular individual has a specific advantage that the others don't have. Which is why I think you knew it couldn't be rationally and factually responded to, you only want to create areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(Apology due to Douglas Adams I think.)

The evolution of a species has to begin with the first one in that group with a mutation that begins the change, or else you are implying a mutation occurred in an entire species at one time. That would be impossible or it would be supernatural.

--Dave

 

[noguru]

The evolution of a species has to begin with the first one in that group with a mutation that begins the change, or else you are implying a mutation occurred in an entire species at one time. That would be impossible or it would be supernatural.

--Dave

So I guess your bridge analogy was fallacious.

This is another argument from incredulity. You label it impossible because you cannot fathom it. Then slip in your claim of a "supernatural explanation".

Where is your research for this claim of "impossibility"?

Do you honestly think your review of this is more thorough and rigorous than the professionals in this field?

Oh right we are suppose to take your word for it, because you claim to be "Christian".

 

[gcthomas]

The evolution of a species has to begin with the first one in that group with a mutation that begins the change, or else you are implying a mutation occurred in an entire species at one time. That would be impossible or it would be supernatural.

--Dave

The species is represented by the entire gene pool of the interbreeding population that makes up that species. Evolution is the changing frequency of the various alleles. A mutation that appears in an individual that can breed is part of that species' gene pool.

As has been said it is species (gene pools) that evolve, not individuals.

 

[noguru]

Does your brain have a function?

Does your brain have a purposeless function, or does it function for a purpose?

--Dave

I have already expressed the common thread in all life regarding purpose. Life's purpose is to continue. If it were not, then it would end without any major cataclysm. So yes, to answer your question my brain does serve a function for that purpose. It helps me to navigate through this minefield of dangers we call life, in order to extend my life and that of others as far as possible.

I went back to being a Christian theist after 17 years as an agnostic/atheist. That was prompted by the realization that the fundamental teaching of Jesus is faith in the purpose/value of life, as abundant as the environment allows, and its continuation through me and other people. It is this concept that is the common thread between Christian theism and what I have learned about evolution.

 

[DFT_Dave]

The species is represented by the entire gene pool of the interbreeding population that makes up that species. Evolution is the changing frequency of the various alleles. A mutation that appears in an individual that can breed is part of that species' gene pool.

As has been said it is species (gene pools) that evolve, not individuals.

10 Unusual Genetic Mutations in Humans

Mutations cause physical changes, yes?

Take a look, do any of these mutations help produce more offspring?

Are these examples of how we got to where we are today? --Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

The species is represented by the entire gene pool of the interbreeding population that makes up that species. Evolution is the changing frequency of the various alleles. A mutation that appears in an individual that can breed is part of that species' gene pool.

As has been said it is species (gene pools) that evolve, not individuals.

Ok, so an individual in a group, with a change in the gene pool, is born with a new physical ability to produce more offspring then those who do not have that new physical "whatever".

Give me examples then of those physical changes in the evolution of man that you know, as fact, helped produce more offspring.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

So I guess your bridge analogy was fallacious.

This is another argument from incredulity. You label it impossible because you cannot fathom it. Then slip in your claim of a "supernatural explanation".

Where is your research for this claim of "impossibility"?

Do you honestly think your review of this is more thorough and rigorous than the professionals in this field?

Oh right we are suppose to take your word for it, because you claim to be "Christian".

Your constant "Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy.

--Dave

 

[alwight]

The evolution of a species has to begin with the first one in that group with a mutation that begins the change, or else you are implying a mutation occurred in an entire species at one time. That would be impossible or it would be supernatural.

--Dave

I rather suspect that you'd much rather fabricate your own scenarios to call impossible than understand or figure out what actually is being said by geneticists not by little ol' me.

However, and as I understand things: let's suppose that a harmful mutation comes along, then perhaps we can suppose that that individual's genes are somewhat less likely to get passed on.
Otoh a beneficial mutation has probably got a somewhat better than average chance of seeing its way to the next generation, while for the deleterious one it would be vice versa. That much seems pretty safe to assume imo.

The general tendency being for beneficial genes to proliferate while the opposite is perhaps true for deleterious ones.
The changes within the species' gene pool will be correspondingly gradual and sure for both beneficial or deleterious genes despite any individual's star qualities. IOW evolution is a matter for changes to the whole gene pool, not whether one individual happens to have a particularly effective new trait or not.

 

[gcthomas]

Ok, so an individual in a group, with a change in the gene pool, is born with a new physical ability to produce more offspring then those who do not have that new physical "whatever".

Give me examples then of those physical changes in the evolution of man that you know, as fact, helped produce more offspring.

--Dave

Genes that allowed us to metabolise milk lactose, and same for alcohol. The alcohol metabolism gene had a smaller benefit in the far east where water was sterilised by boiling instead of by poisoning with alcohol, so this gene is not ubiquitous in Japan even now.

The gene that made for lighter skin on mid-northern latitudes to aid the photosynthesis of a vitamin in our skin.

The gene that causes sickle cell anaemia in malaria endemic areas.

There are lots more, Dave.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Bottom line is mutations randomly occur and cause no major changes relevant to the evolution of a species or the forming of a new one.




All the evolutionists showed by their falling tree, is randomness in mutations.
That directly lines up with Satans workings, which God allows.
And uses him for his purposes.

John 9:2 KJV
And his disciples asked him, saying , Master, who did sin , this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

3 Jesus answered , Neither hath this man sinned , nor his parents:
but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

And yes Michael there is a night coming.

4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh , when no man can work .

 

[gcthomas]

Bottom line is mutations randomly occur and cause no major changes relevant to the evolution of a species or the forming of a new one.

So you are going to just ignore the specific mutations I mentioned above and act as if they didn't exist?

Figures. :carryon:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

So you are going to just ignore the specific mutations I mentioned above and act as if they didn't exist?

Figures. :carryon:

Doesnt matter what you want that fallen tree to do, it will only make a slight change in the system in which it abides.

 

[gcthomas]

Doesnt matter what you want that fallen tree to do, it will only make a slight change in the system in which it abides.

So is a tree that bridges a river an advantage to creatures that might use it or a problem?

It seems that the tree allows a greater range to the creatures which are foraging for food and allows more interbreeding between smaller population, reducing the chance of inbreeding problems.

You seem desparate to claim that a fallen tree is useless, but you'd be wrong.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

So is a tree that bridges a river an advantage to creatures that might use it or a problem?

It seems that the tree allows a greater range to the creatures which are foraging for food and allows more interbreeding between smaller population, reducing the chance of inbreeding problems.

You seem desparate to claim that a fallen tree is useless, but you'd be wrong.

Just as much harm as good can be accomplished messin around with the genetic codes that already exist.
Science does not know what causes mutations in the natural.
Thats why we have laws that govern stem cell research.

 

[gcthomas]

Just as much harm as good can be accomplished messin around with the genetic codes that already exist.
Science does not know what causes mutations in the natural.
Thats why we have laws that govern stem cell research.

How does that relate to what we were discussing? (Tree bridges)

Anyhow, to answer your crazy assertions:
Mutations are caused by ionising radiation, some chemicals, transcription errors, and insertions and deletions caused by plasmids, transposons and the like.

Oh, and the US has never had a federal law banning stem cell research, and states don't tend to go beyond banning cloning.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

How does that relate to what we were discussing? (Tree bridges)

2 + 2 = 4?

Anyhow, to answer your crazy assertions:
Mutations are caused by ionising radiation, some chemicals, transcription errors, and insertions and deletions caused by plasmids, transposons and the like.

Thats how scientists mess around with them.
Has nothing to do with how or why they occur in nature. :juggle:

Oh, and the US has never had a federal law banning stem cell research, and states don't tend to go beyond banning cloning.

Do you always equate the word govern with ban?
Gimme a break.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Genes that allowed us to metabolise milk lactose, and same for alcohol. The alcohol metabolism gene had a smaller benefit in the far east where water was sterilised by boiling instead of by poisoning with alcohol, so this gene is not ubiquitous in Japan even now.

The gene that made for lighter skin on mid-northern latitudes to aid the photosynthesis of a vitamin in our skin.

The gene that causes sickle cell anaemia in malaria endemic areas.

There are lots more, Dave.

And this helped man at what point in his evolution and what empirical evidence do you have that proves any of the examples you gave lead to more offspring.

Nothing you have said tells me how, or if, homo erectus came from australopithecine or something else.

--Dave

 

[alwight]

The gene that causes sickle cell anaemia in malaria endemic areas.

Right, more offspring have survived with that gene than without it in those regions, despite the anaemia which isn't a good thing in itself.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Right, more offspring have survived with that gene than without it in those regions, despite the anaemia which isn't a good thing in itself.

But what does this have to do with proof that we have evolved from a common ancestor with apes?

--Dave