Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Greg Jennings]

And stretching out the heavens could indicate the expansion of the universe.

Yes it COULD!!!!

Like the Big Bang!!! Something that requires the universe to be billions of years old!!! You're catching on

 

[Greg Jennings]

Ok... I bet you a cup of coffee.


It isn't behind paywall. And, in any case Greg only needed the abstract to understand what near neutral mutations are... and to answer the simple question I asked.

If it's not behind a pay wall, then why haven't you provided me with THAT link?

Please don't lie. If you have the whole paper, give me access. I'm sorry, but I've helped WRITEtgesevthings. You do need more than an abstract to understand with any sort of clarity. Most papers require two full readings to be well understood, sonegthkng that of course you're unaware of

 

[Silent Hunter]

If it's not behind a pay wall, then why haven't you provided me with THAT link?

Please don't lie. If you have the whole paper, give me access. I'm sorry, but I've helped WRITEtgesevthings. You do need more than an abstract to understand with any sort of clarity. Most papers require two full readings to be well understood, sonegthkng that of course you're unaware of

Calm down. He posted a link in #1710. The article is very complex and contains some pretty difficult math and language (which I doubt 6days understands) but it's there.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes it COULD!!!!

Like the Big Bang!!! Something that requires the universe to be billions of years old!!! You're catching on

No, Greg, not like the Big Bang, not which requires the universe to be billions of years old.

Greg, read this passage of scripture for me.

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. - Genesis 1:11-12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:11-12&version=NKJV

Here's the Hebrew.

I want you to consider something:

Consider that, while this verse is literal, it is also an analogy of something else.

Now, read this verse.

Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: “I am the Lord , who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself; - Isaiah 44:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah44:24&version=NKJV

The word in Genesis for "bring forth" seems to indicate a literal "pulling out of the ground."

Remember that analogy I mentioned? Consider that when the Bible says that God stretched out the heavens, he did it in such a way that he pulled the light from the stars, as if pulling plants from the ground.

If it's not behind a pay wall, then why haven't you provided me with THAT link?

Please don't lie. If you have the whole paper, give me access. I'm sorry, but I've helped WRITEtgesevthings. You do need more than an abstract to understand with any sort of clarity. Most papers require two full readings to be well understood, sonegthkng that of course you're unaware of

Jose... we bet a coffee on this right? http://agingfree.org/Portals/0/xBlo...ions- why have we not died 100 times over.pdf

In any case, as I told Greg, he doesn't need read a article to understand what a near neutral / very slightly deleterious mutation is. The question I asked him is simple.... You can answer it for him if you wish.

 

[George Affleck]

Why did all of geology/biology once believe as you do, then REJECT your silly theory after centuries of gathering evidence?

Because one guy, who was mad at God for killing his daughter, figured out he could get paid for sailing around the world and bringing back fairy tales to other men who desperately hated the idea of doing what God wanted them to do.

 

[6days]

If it's not behind a pay wall, then why haven't you provided me with THAT link?

Please don't lie. If you have the whole paper, give me access. I'm sorry, but I've helped WRITEtgesevthings. You do need more than an abstract to understand with any sort of clarity. Most papers require two full readings to be well understood, sonegthkng that of course you're unaware of

Greg.... You do not need to read articles from a journal to understand what near neutral mutations are.

 

[Stripe]

All heritable changes in phenotype are due to mutations.

Nope.

As you learned, organisms can adapt in swift, predictable ways. No mutations necessary.

Would you like it explained to you again how the evidence shows this?

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose... we bet a coffee on this right? http://agingfree.org/Portals/0/xBlo...ions- why have we not died 100 times over.pdf

In any case, as I told Greg, he doesn't need read a article to understand what a near neutral / very slightly deleterious mutation is. The question I asked him is simple.... You can answer it for him if you wish.

Well now this is weird. Previously, every single time you linked to that paper, you used the sciencedirect site, which puts the paper behind a paywall. Then even when Greg points out that you're only linking to the abstract, you still continue to link to the paywall site.

But now all of a sudden you link to the paper via some obscure anti-aging website? Why just now?

Simple answer... I knew the article was free, but could not find it using my phone. Now on computer and I gave you the link.

That doesn't make sense, as you previously always used the sciencedirect link.

But either way, now that everyone here has the full paper, let's discuss it. As you should know, Kondrashov starts off by asking why humans haven't gone extinct.....and then after making his case for his statistical estimates, he presents 5 potential resolutions.

If your argument is that this paper presents a fundamental problem for evolutionary theory and the history of H. sapiens, then please explain why each of those 5 resolutions are inadequate.

Also, this paper was published in 1995, and as the science direct website shows, it was hardly the last bit of work on this subject. Several other papers take up the subject and address the issue.

Have you read those papers and stayed up to date on this?

 

[6days]

Well now this is weird. Previously, every single time you linked to that paper, you used the sciencedirect site, which puts the paper behind a paywall. Then even when Greg points out that you're only linking to the abstract, you still continue to link to the paywall site.

But now all of a sudden you link to the paper via some obscure anti-aging website? Why just now?


That doesn't make sense, as you previously always used the sciencedirect link.

But either way, now that everyone here has the full paper, let's discuss it. As you should know, Kondrashov starts off by asking why humans haven't gone extinct.....and then after making his case for his statistical estimates, he presents 5 potential resolutions.

If your argument is that this paper presents a fundamental problem for evolutionary theory and the history of H. sapiens, then please explain why each of those 5 resolutions are inadequate.

Also, this paper was published in 1995, and as the science direct website shows, it was hardly the last bit of work on this subject. Several other papers take up the subject and address the issue.

Have you read those papers and stayed up to date on this?

I appreciate your heartfelt apology Jose. SO... when are we going to do coffee?

 

[Jose Fly]

I appreciate your heartfelt apology Jose. SO... when are we going to do coffee?

I'll be more than happy to buy you a cup of coffee if/when the chance ever arises.

Now, back to the subject at hand. Now that everyone here has the full paper, let's discuss it. As you should know, Kondrashov starts off by asking why humans haven't gone extinct.....and then after making his case for his statistical estimates, he presents 5 potential resolutions.

If your argument is that this paper presents a fundamental problem for evolutionary theory and the history of H. sapiens, then please explain why each of those 5 resolutions are inadequate.

Also, this paper was published in 1995, and as the science direct website shows, it was hardly the last bit of work on this subject. Several other papers take up the subject and address the issue.

Have you read those papers and stayed up to date on this?

 

[6days]

I'll be more than happy to buy you a cup of coffee if/when the chance ever arises.

Thanks! I imagine in person, we would each seem like a better person than we sometimes appear in a forum.

Now, back to the subject at hand. Now that everyone here has the full paper, let's discuss it. As you should know, Kondrashov starts off by asking why humans haven't gone extinct.....and then after making his case for his statistical estimates, he presents 5 potential resolutions.

We agree.

If your argument is that this paper presents a fundamental problem for evolutionary theory and the history of H. sapiens

I linked to the paper because Greg did not seem to know what very slightly deleterious mutations are. The abstract should have given him enough information to answer a simple question I asked.

then please explain why each of those 5 resolutions are inadequate.

That is basically the answer I wanted from Greg. Geneticists understand the problem. Evolutionists propose (believe) in a variety of possible solutions. A correct answer to the question I asked would be "We don't know".


As to arguing against the 5 possible solutions, I'm not sure I can... they are beliefs. But, if you want to pick one possible solution, I can try engage.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thanks! I imagine in person, we would each seem like a better person than we sometimes appear in a forum.

That's usually the case.

I linked to the paper because Greg did not seem to know what very slightly deleterious mutations are. The abstract should have given him enough information to answer a simple question I asked.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe in the past you have cited this paper as an argument against evolutionary theory, have you not?

Geneticists understand the problem. Evolutionists propose (believe) in a variety of possible solutions. A correct answer to the question I asked would be "We don't know".

Not really. As I noted, Kondrashov's paper isn't the definitive piece of work here and there has been several related papers published since. Have you read them?

As to arguing against the 5 possible solutions, I'm not sure I can... they are beliefs. But, if you want to pick one possible solution, I can try engage.

They're not beliefs, they're statistical estimates. And more specifically, they're statistical estimates that rely on a number of very specific conditions and assumptions (such as the ratio of effective population size to genome size). Only under a specific set of those conditions and assumptions does the issue of the load associated with VSDMs arise. That's why Kondrashov offered a set of potential resolutions; if you change some of those conditions/assumptions the problem is alleviated.

 

[Stripe]

That's usually the case.

Not with me. :banana:

 

[iouae]

I don't think that 6days has a clue what the paper he pointed to says.


Just choosing a random paragraph, it says the following...

According to Kimura (1983: 248) VSDMs do not cause any problem because (i) they accumulate very slowly and (ii) their impact can be easily counter- balanced by rare fixations of beneficial alleles. I do not think that this is correct.
High contamination by VSDMs is reached after Ne of a lineage remains much smaller than G during 0m−11108 generations. This may be the case in some vertebrates. In addition, if after a drop of Ne the expected equilibrium contamination is, say, 100, VSDMs may become important much sooner, 0106 generations after the drop. The total mutation rate in mammals is 0100 events per genome. If 10% of them are VSDMs with the average selection coefficient 10−6 (implying Ne1105), they cause the decline of fitness by 010−5 per generation (if initially all nucleotides were best). This decline will become important 0105 generations after the drop of Ne.

Unfortunately the paragraph does not copy and paste the exponents correctly. See p589.

This is talking about millions of generations (which 6days does not believe in since earth is only 6000 year old) and is a problem when populations drop to small sizes (which occurred only once at the flood), but God selected Noah and family because they were "perfect in their generations" meaning had a perfect genetic content to father a new human population.

So this whole piece of fringe science (6days favourite sort) is irrelevant, but I doubt 6days has read it, or even understands the paragraph quoted above.

The human genome, created by God is doing perfectly fine, and will last the few more years till Christ's return, and then carry on quite fine through the millennium.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Here is a classic example of the inability of Darwinists to separate their beliefs about the past, for which there is no observational evidence, from observational science. Its all lumped together under the general heading of science. This is a fact that proves my point above. The ToE is not true science; its a tautology as Stripe has pointed out. It has the appearance of real science in the same way that Hollywood movies are incredibly realistic.

Here is a prime example of pompous rhetoric, effectively a thinly veiled hangup with science that contradicts
a doctrine of literalism. Sure, the ToE is real science whatever your personal objections happen to be. Those not blinkered by dogma aren't hindered by it. Perhaps this is more your level of 'science'?



:freak:

Here also is an example of an unbeliever's inability to understand the importance of taking God at His word. This "myriad of scientists who have faith" do not place it in God's ability to plainly speak to His creation without properly warning them that when He says day he really means epoch and when He says worldwide flood He really means a local one.

Aside from the arrogant assumption on your part, there's nothing wrong with seeing obvious allegory and poetic narrative in the bible. Keep to your creationist doctrine if you want, nobody else is obliged to abandon common sense and science including Christians.

No, the goal of science is not to do away with God. The goal of Darwinian evolution, which is not science, does that by masquerading as real science.

Clueless.

 

[6days]

So this whole piece of fringe science (Kondrashov's article)...

Haha

 

[6days]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe in the past you have cited this paper as an argument against evolutionary theory, have you not?

I have quoted it before, yes

As to arguing against the 5 possible solutions, I'm not sure I can... they are beliefs. But, if you want to pick one possible solution, I can try engage.

They're not beliefs, they're statistical estimates....

Estimates based on beliefs and assumptions. Evolutionists see the fitness decline due to VSDM's, so they try and understand that within the vast time frames they believe in. In the Biblical model, the data is consistent with a young creation.
You didn't pick any of Kondrashov's rescue devices?

Only under a specific set of those conditions and assumptions does the issue of the load associated with VSDMs arise. That's why Kondrashov offered a set of potential resolutions; if you change some of those conditions/assumptions the problem is alleviated.

That brings us back to the question I asked Greg... How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, (Plus 3 that are deleterious) per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2? And... I asked if you could answer from science and not answer with beliefs."

 

[Jose Fly]

I have quoted it before, yes

And what exactly is your point when you cite this paper?

Estimates based on beliefs and assumptions.

Um.....6days.... the entire paper is composed of statistical estimates that are based on specific conditions and assumptions, including the issue of VSDMs and genetic load.

If want to wave away everything in this paper that is a statistical estimate, then you have to wave away the whole paper.

Evolutionists see the fitness decline due to VSDM's, so they try and understand that within the vast time frames they believe in.

Please explain how Kondrashov establishes that as potentially happening, and what set of circumstances are required.

You didn't pick any of Kondrashov's rescue devices?

Lol...it's hilarious how you simultaneously rely on and disparage his work.

That brings us back to the question I asked Greg... How can natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, (Plus 3 that are deleterious) per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2? And... I asked if you could answer from science and not answer with beliefs."

You apparently are unaware of how this paper was published before the human genome was sequenced, which revealed that some of Kondrashov's assumptions that went into his estimate of the number of VSDMs were off. Also, as others have attempted to get you to realize, the set of circumstances under which this becomes an issue aren't apparent. Did you miss that?

 

[6days]

And what exactly is your point when you cite this paper?

Accumulation of VSDM's in a lineage act like a time bomb.

Please explain how Kondrashov establishes that (fitness decline)as potentially happening, and what set of circumstances are required.

He says the mutation load 'paradox' appears real...it can lead to extinction.

You didn't pick any of Kondrashov's rescue devices?

Lol...it's hilarious how you simultaneously rely on and disparage his work.

Huh?

You apparently are unaware of how this paper was published before the human genome was sequenced, which revealed that some of Kondrashov's assumptions that went into his estimate of the number of VSDMs were off.

ENCODE research reveals the paradox problem is likely much worse than Kondrashov imagined.

 

[The Barbarian]

And what exactly is your point when you cite this paper?


Um.....6days.... the entire paper is composed of statistical estimates that are based on specific conditions and assumptions, including the issue of VSDMs and genetic load.

If want to wave away everything in this paper that is a statistical estimate, then you have to wave away the whole paper.


Please explain how Kondrashov establishes that as potentially happening, and what set of circumstances are required.


Lol...it's hilarious how you simultaneously rely on and disparage his work.


You apparently are unaware of how this paper was published before the human genome was sequenced, which revealed that some of Kondrashov's assumptions that went into his estimate of the number of VSDMs were off. Also, as others have attempted to get you to realize, the set of circumstances under which this becomes an issue aren't apparent. Did you miss that?

He's just cutting and pasting from other websites. You might as well be speaking to him in Urdu.