Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[6days]

What exactly do you think microsat regions do?

Are you asking because you don't know? Or, because you believe it's junk?
As you know, research is revealing there is purpose and function, to things evolutionists once dismissed as biological garbage. This includes the micro satellite regions of our DNA. Research has begun to reveal some of the possibilities such as allowing positioning of genes within the nucleus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9461407

 

[Greg Jennings]

You are silly and arguing to spite your face. If a mutation caused a shark to lose a fin... That is an effect. It's just goofy suggesting neutral mutations can cause a loss of an appendage. The article doesn't say what your teacher told you.

Oh my.... you are confused. You may or may not see an immediate effect of a mutation ( you usually don't).... but that does not mean that the mutation is neutral.


Here is a little crash course for you. Many perhaps most geneticists consider the near neutral (The slightly deleterious mutations) to be the worst. Selection of courses incapable of recognizing and removing over a hundred new mutations added to our genome every generation. Selection usually can't even remove the ones that are considered deleterious. These mutations accumulate to cause possible problems in the future. A couple geneticists have called it the population bomb.


EXAMPLE ... a mutation could cause one of your kidneys to stop functioning. It may have no obvious effect on you but there is not a geneticist in the world that would call that a neutral mutation.

And again I'll ask, does one dorsal fin help or hurt a nurse shark as opposed to two?

You've already admitted that there is no change in fitness. That's a neutral mutation.

Sorry you don't get it. Probably bc you never bothered to learn anything from anywhere other than AiG. I know that's it's jarring finding out you spent likely hundreds of hours studying something that is bogus (and run by a baby-deliverer as the "head scientist"), but I'm not pulling punches anymore.

Why can't you just admit you made a mistake? I'd gain SOOOOO much respect for any of you YECs (other than Lon, bc he already has proven to me that he has a backbone) if you'd just admit when you lose a point

 

[6days]

And again I'll ask, does one dorsal fin help or hurt a nurse shark as opposed to two?

If you have research on this we can discuss it.

You've already admitted that there is no change in fitness. That's a neutral mutation.

Haha.... funny. I think you should stick to debating theology, because you don't understand genetics. Face it Greg..... the teacher who gave you the example of a nurse shark losing a fin as an example of a neutral mutation did you bad.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
So engineers use genetic algorithms. They copy Darwinian evolution seen in nature.

I think you were fooled because they used the word 'genetic'.

Wouldn't matter what they called it. They just copied observed evolution in nature.

Also making it difficult is you don't understand mutations.

You're confused, because you were fed the creationist nonsense about mutations. "Mutation" means "change." A mutation is merely a change in the genome. If this happens to be a sperm or egg cell, the new organism will have an allele that did not exist in either parent. That's what it is.

There are lot of different kinds of mutations, varying from point mutations that affect only one base pair (by far the most common) to things like polyploidy, fusions, crossovers, gene duplications, and so on. Because these and their effects are a mystery to you, you're struggling here.

Do you still agree with Greg that mutations gave them an extra fin because of radiation at Bikini Atoll?

So you're making up ideas for me, again. If you didn't lie about things like that, you'd do better here. Yes, heritable changes are due to mutations. Whether or not the radiation from a nuclear blast is responsible is a matter of conjecture. It very well might be; we know radiation causes mutations, and increased ionizing radiation does tend to increase the number of observed mutations.

Do you still think each human has less than 100 deleterious mutations ( slightly or otherwise)?

The vast majority of human mutations don't do anything observable. A few of them, are harmful, and tend to be removed by natural selection. A very few are favorable, and tend to be retained and increase in the population.

Examples are the mutation that allows Tibetans to survive at very high altitudes, the allele that gives good protection against bubonic plague and HIV infection, and the mutation that provides good resistance to arteriosclerosis.

Do you think natural selection can remove all deleterious mutations from humans?

Not so long as we have an incest aversion. There are many, many harmful recessives in all humans. They continue to exist only because humans generally abhor inbreeding. Animal species that routinely do inbreed tend to have very few harmful recessives, because natural selection removes them. This is because harmful recessives only cause problems if you have two copies of them. Outbreeding greatly reduces the likelihood of that.

See what you missed by sleeping in science class?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
They didn't design anything. They merely copied from nature.

Of course they did. They had specifications and intent,

Nature isn't made of "specifications." It's just what it is. They copied mutation and natural selection and let it run. Not surprisingly, it worked. Just like nature. All that was necessary was random mutation, and an environment that favored some mutations over others.

things that are not available to evolution.

Those things are directly observed in nature, Stipe. That's why they copied them. It works for very complex problems. Guess what doesn't work for them.

Design.

Yep. Mutation and natural selection work when design won't. You seem to be scared of a God smart enough to know that.

You shouldn't be.

 

[6days]

They just copied observed evolution in nature.

Nope... you believe that, because you don't understand Mutations, and you desperately want to believe in uphill evolution.

"Mutation" means "change." A mutation is merely a change in the genome.

Ha.... I don't think you are a very good salesman. How about this... mutations corrupt the pre-existing genetic information period.

Do you still agree with Greg that mutations gave them an extra fin because of radiation at Bikini Atoll?

So you're making up ideas for me, again.

Nope... you are being dishonest again. Greg was saying something not true, and you fell for it believing mutations created an extra fin on sharks.

Do you still think each human has less than 100 deleterious mutations ( slightly or otherwise)?

The vast majority of human mutations don't do anything observable.

Your non-answer is encouraging...You must realize you were wrong, but not able to admit it.

Do you think natural selection can remove all deleterious mutations from humans?

Not so long as we have an incest aversion.

And here I thought you were learning and then you go and blow it with that answer. The correct answer as all geneticists know is that natural selection does not seem to be able to remove hardly any deleterious mutations, so mutations accumulate in our genome. It is absolutely impossible for natural selection to remove 100 or 200 additional mutations per person per generation..... unless each of us starts having several hundred babies.

There are many, many harmful recessives in all humans.

There we go, you are back on track with a correct statement. These slightly deleterious mutations can remain dormant for many years and all of a sudden cause genetic problems and genetic diseases. that's why geneticists are concerned about genetic low and create different models trying to understand how humanity has survived the vast timelines that they believe in.

[l
See what you missed by sleeping in science class?

The problem for you is that you don't understand the science. You are relying on evolutionary beliefs from almost 50 years ago.


Science and genetics helps confirm we were fearfully and wonderfully made by a perfect Creator. Creation has been subjected to corruption. We suffer from increasing genetic problems, and ultimately death. We look forward to the time when "He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever."

 

[Stripe]

They copied mutation and natural selection.

Nope. They restricted possible changes to specific areas because they had intent.

Just like nature.

Nope. Evolution does not have specificity and intent available to it.

All that was necessary was random mutation.

Nope. The changes weren't random.

Meanwhile, the interesting discussion gets buried. Darwinists hate ideas that their religion can't handle.

 

[The Barbarian]

Nope. They restricted possible changes to specific areas because they had intent.

Nope. The process allowed any mutation to any factor. You're letting your imagination provide a make-believe world for you.

Barbarian observes:
Random change and natural selection. No specificity or intent, just like nature.

Evolution does not have specificity and intent available to it.

There you go. You're catching on,Stipe.

The changes weren't random.

They were. The key is, only the random changes that made the engine more efficient were retained for the next generation. Just like nature.

Meanwhile, the interesting discussion gets buried.

Don't be so modest. You were very useful in showing one of the superstitions creationists have about evolution.

Creationists hate ideas that their religion can't handle.

 

[patrick jane]

Nope. The process allowed any mutation to any factor. You're letting your imagination provide a make-believe world for you.

Barbarian observes:
Random change and natural selection. No specificity or intent, just like nature.



There you go. You're catching on,Stipe.



They were. The key is, only the random changes that made the engine more efficient were retained for the next generation. Just like nature.



Don't be so modest. You were very useful in showing one of the superstitions creationists have about evolution.

Creationists hate ideas that their religion can't handle.

Bottom line is, we came from monkeys, right barb?

 

[The Barbarian]

Nope... you believe that, because you don't understand Mutations, and you desperately want to believe in uphill evolution.

You've already shown us that you don't understand genetics. The notion that wolves had all the new alleles we see in dogs, is laughable. You don't get it, because you don't understand that no wolf could have more than two alleles for each gene locus. As you learned, we know precisely the mutation that make dachshunds so formidable at hunting badgers, and it was never in any wolf population.

How about this... mutations corrupt the pre-existing genetic information period.

The guys who bred dachshunds are laughing at you.

Nope... you are being dishonest again.

You lied about what I said. You got caught. Learn from it.

(6days changes his story yet again)

Greg was saying something not true, and you fell for it believing mutations created an extra fin on sharks.

How do you think those sharks got an extra fin which is now passed on to succeeding generations?

Your non-answer is encouraging...

You got an answer, but you didn't like it. So you pretended I didn't give you an answer. I pointed out that of those mutations, most don't do anything noticeable. Some are harmful and a few are useful. And natural selection tends to remove the harmful ones and tends to keep the useful ones.

You now realize you were wrong, but you're still not able to admit it.

And here I thought you were learning and then you go and blow it with that answer. The correct answer as all geneticists know is that natural selection does not seem to be able to remove hardly any deleterious mutations

You've been misled about that. Just as you didn't know that organisms have only one pair of chromosomes each, you don't realize that natural selection removes harmful alleles.

What you're still missing is that harmful recessives don't normally get removed from a population unless they often inbreed. Inbreeding species normally have very few harmful recessives:

Genetic Management of Fragmented Animal and Plant Populations - p.46
https://global.oup.com/academic/pro...lant-populations-9780198783398?cc=us&lang=en&

so mutations accumulate in our genome. It is absolutely impossible for natural selection to remove 100 or 200 additional mutations per person per generation.....

Even if all of our mutations were harmful, the fact that most of them are recessive, means we can carry hundreds of them without much hazard. Unless we inbreed.

These slightly deleterious mutations can remain dormant for many years

Some geneticists use "dormant" to mean genes that still exist, but are suppressed by other genes, such as those that code for dinosaur teeth in birds. The genes still exist, but have been suppressed by other genes. It is possible to reactivate them, however.

The problem for you is that you still can't get your head around the way genes work. Adam and Eve together, could have had at most 4 alleles for each gene locus. Yet humans have dozens of useful alleles for most of them.

The rest evolved. No other way for it to have happened, unless you believe in gene fairies.

Science and genetics helps confirm we were fearfully and wonderfully made by a perfect Creator.

You'll admit that much; you just don't approve of the way He did it.

 

[Stripe]

The process allowed any mutation to any factor.

Any factor among those they allowed. Design. Intent.

Meanwhile, the interesting discussion gets buried.

Thanks, Blablaman. lain:

 

[gcthomas]

Bottom line is, we came from monkeys, right barb?

Or monkeys came from us — there is some symmetry in the relationship.

Better still, we and monkeys came from the same ancestors, as the fossil record shows.

 

[Stripe]

Or monkeys came from us — there is some symmetry in the relationship.Better still, we and monkeys came from the same ancestors, as the fossil record shows.

:darwinsm:

 

[6days]

Bottom line is, we came from monkeys, right barb?

Haha... Good one Patrick. Sadly that does seem his bottom line, inspite of evidence,... and inspite of God's Word.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you asking because you don't know? Or, because you believe it's junk?

I want to know what you think microsat regions do.

As you know, research is revealing there is purpose and function, to things evolutionists once dismissed as biological garbage. This includes the micro satellite regions of our DNA. Research has begun to reveal some of the possibilities such as allowing positioning of genes within the nucleus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9461407

Ok, now that's hilarious (and I bet you have no idea why this is so funny). How about you explain what you think that paper says?

 

[6days]

The notion that wolves had all the new alleles we see in dogs, is laughable.

Happy for You! Not everyone can create straw men that they get so much pleasure from!

How do you think those sharks got an extra fin which is now passed on to succeeding generations?

Actually, the sharks Greg was talking about lost a fin. He was mistaken and admitted it. You were a little too anxious to believe... and never admit you are wrong.

I pointed out that of those mutations, most don't do anything noticeable. Some are harmful and a few are useful. And natural selection tends to remove the harmful ones and tends to keep the useful ones.

Perhaps that is what you were taught in the 60's, which science has proven wrong. Geneticists now realize each person from each generation has 100 or more NEW mutations. These are ALL considered to be to the 'left' of neutral. IOW the mutations are all to the harmful side, near neutral. Of these new mutations as many as 10% are considered harmful. (Some say maybe only 3). Natural selection of course is incapable of removing deleting that number of mutations in a population with a birth rate far less than that.

What you're still missing is that harmful recessives don't normally get removed from a population unless they often inbreed.

Haha... Once again, you can't remove 100 harmful recessive mutations each generation, in a population with a birthrate of 2... even if you think incest would help.


BTW... Are you now admitting you were wrong when you said 'each human has less than 100 deleterious mutations, slightly or otherwise'?

Even if all of our mutations were harmful, the fact that most of them are recessive, means we can carry hundreds of them

Thousands actually. Thats why secular geneticists are puzzled how humanity has survived the vast time lines they believe in. The evidence is consistent with the time frame of God's Word and the genealogies from first Adam.

Adam and Eve together, could have had at most 4 alleles for each gene locus. Yet humans have dozens of useful alleles for most of them.

Variants of just 4 alleles still allows for lots of diversity. "Does this fit the evidence? Absolutely! Most variable places in the genome come in two versions and these versions are spread out across the world. There are some highly variable places that seem to contradict this, but most of these are due to mutations that occurred in the different subpopulations after Babel."http://creation.mobi/noah-and-genetics

...you just don't approve of the way He did it.

Its not up to us to approve God...We do however choose whether to believe that He created Eve from Adam's rib... etc.

 

[Clete]

Then what is it. Prove me wrong


YECs seem to have a problem with proof

Prove you wrong about what? That I claimed to be some sort of expert? That I claimed to have had a formal science education?

The thread still exists for everyone to read, moron. What is there for me to prove? That you can't read? That you're a closed minded fool who doesn't or can't or won't understand what is clearly obvious to anyone who reads this thread or pays any attention to the discoveries that have been made in molecular biology and biochemistry?

You're a waste of time and a liar. Why on Earth would I spend any more time than has already been spent on the likes of you?


Clete

 

[Clete]

Happy for You! Not everyone can create straw men that they get so much pleasure from!

Actually, the sharks Greg was talking about lost a fin. He was mistaken and admitted it. You were a little too anxious to believe... and never admit you are wrong.

Perhaps that is what you were taught in the 60's, which science has proven wrong. Geneticists now realize each person from each generation has 100 or more NEW mutations. These are ALL considered to be to the 'left' of neutral. IOW the mutations are all to the harmful side, near neutral. Of these new mutations as many as 10% are considered harmful. (Some say maybe only 3). Natural selection of course is incapable of removing deleting that number of mutations in a population with a birth rate far less than that.

Haha... Once again, you can't remove 100 harmful recessive mutations each generation, in a population with a birthrate of 2... even if you think incest would help.


BTW... Are you now admitting you were wrong when you said 'each human has less than 100 deleterious mutations, slightly or otherwise'?

Thousands actually. Thats why secular geneticists are puzzled how humanity has survived the vast time lines they believe in. The evidence is consistent with the time frame of God's Word and the genealogies from first Adam.

Variants of just 4 alleles still allows for lots of diversity. "Does this fit the evidence? Absolutely! Most variable places in the genome come in two versions and these versions are spread out across the world. There are some highly variable places that seem to contradict this, but most of these are due to mutations that occurred in the different subpopulations after Babel."http://creation.mobi/noah-and-genetics

Its not up to us to approve God...We do however choose whether to believe that He created Eve from Adam's rib... etc.

Excellent post!

 

[Greg Jennings]

Prove you wrong about what? That I claimed to be some sort of expert? That I claimed to have had a formal science education?

The thread still exists for everyone to read, moron. What is there for me to prove? That you can't read? That you're a closed minded fool who doesn't or can't or won't understand what is clearly obvious to anyone who reads this thread or pays any attention to the discoveries that have been made in molecular biology and biochemistry?

You're a waste of time and a liar. Why on Earth would I spend any more time than has already been spent on the likes of you?


Clete

You're so laughably ill informed that I'm not willing to engage you beyond this. What you said above disqualifies you from scientific reasoning capabilities.

But you called me a liar. If that's true, what did I lie bout? To support your point, there should be proof. I don't delete posts unless they are copies, and I almost never do that. So prove I'm a liar.


Otherwise, you yourself are said liar. Go figure

 

[Greg Jennings]

If you have research on this we can discuss it.

Haha.... funny. I think you should stick to debating theology, because you don't understand genetics. Face it Greg..... the teacher who gave you the example of a nurse shark losing a fin as an example of a neutral mutation did you bad.

No teacher gave me that example, several well-documented accounts presented in different media outlets did. I showed you those.

I never argued that a fin needed to be lost or gained. I simply gave you an example off the top of my head, and shockingly I made a mistake by reversing the order of the fin count. THAT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO WHAT I AM TELLING YOU.

There is not one scientist in the world who says that one dorsal fin is either an advantage OR disadvantage as opposed to two. Therefore, it is a neutral mutation: one that doesn't produce any noticeable effect