I have an Idea for a new Christian Branch.

[George Affleck]

I suspect that Sanford is attempting to construct genetic reasoning to justify his religious belief rather than provide accurate evidence.
But I may return to this after some more thought.:think:

One of the more important objections I have with evolutionists on this is with the subjective categorization of beneficial/neutral/deleterious mutations and how this impacts the other question of adaptability.

It seems to me that, when it suits their cause, inherent adaptability is labelled a beneficial mutation. It's all subjective reasoning. The statement "x is a beneficial mutation" cannot be proven scientifically and is a matter of opinion. The best that can be said is that it is "obvious" or "self-evident".

For the creationst, all genetic change is ultimately deleterious in that it is a change from "very good". There is no higher level, within the kind, to ascend to. But not all change is genetic change. There are latent, variational potentials within the genome that environmental factors can trigger. The creationist and evolutionist disagree on what adaptability can/cannot achieve.

 

[alwight]

One of the more important objections I have with evolutionists on this is with the subjective categorization of beneficial/neutral/deleterious mutations and how this impacts the other question of adaptability.

It seems to me that, when it suits their cause, inherent adaptability is labelled a beneficial mutation. It's all subjective reasoning. The statement "x is a beneficial mutation" cannot be proven scientifically and is a matter of opinion. The best that can be said is that it is "obvious" or "self-evident".

People may have their own subjective opinions about what is beneficial or not but in Darwinian terms the bottom line is pragmatic selectability and only proven in practice. If in practice something aids survival then it is beneficial, so it really doesn't matter what we each might think or say, we are only here at all imo because beneficial adaptions happen.

For the creationst, all genetic change is ultimately deleterious in that it is a change from "very good". There is no higher level, within the kind, to ascend to. But not all change is genetic change. There are latent, variational potentials within the genome that environmental factors can trigger. The creationist and evolutionist disagree on what adaptability can/cannot achieve.

I don't really know exactly what you mean by adaptability, selective breeding shows that life is very adaptable indeed.
I can't accept that random mutations must always be harmful, that wouldn't be random for one thing. If only harmful or disadvantageous mutations were selected for then of course a rapid decline would surely follow. But equally if advantageous mutations were positively selected for then the opposite must surely be the case. Natural selection typically selects those best adapted regardless of the supposed genetic entropy of Sanford.

Creationists seem to think that humans were somehow originally DNA perfect and that the only way is down, but hard evidence and genetics rather says otherwise, that life was originally very simply and evolved the great complexity we know today, which is the essence of adaptability if you ask me.

 

[Right Divider]

<cut>
I don't really know exactly what you mean by adaptability, selective breeding shows that life is very adaptable indeed.

Not only does selective breeding show great adaptability, it also shows distinct limitations (which evolutionists conveniently ignore).

I can't accept that random mutations must always be harmful, that wouldn't be random for one thing.

I've never heart anyone say that random mutations "must always be harmful", but the observed evidence is that they are very predominately harmful. This makes the bogus idea of the accumulation of random mutations leading from nothing to all that we see today quite unscientific.

If only harmful or disadvantageous mutations were selected for then of course a rapid decline would surely follow. But equally if advantageous mutations were positively selected for then the opposite must surely be the case. Natural selection typically selects those best adapted regardless of the supposed genetic entropy of Sanford.

Who or what does this "selecting"?

Please give us the scientific evidence that there exists a goal seeking selector at work in the world. I want to see some empirical evidence of this.

Creationists seem to think that humans were somehow originally DNA perfect and that the only way is down, but hard evidence and genetics rather says otherwise, that life was originally very simply and evolved the great complexity we know today, which is the essence of adaptability if you ask me.

And evolutionists think that the immense complexity that we see in the world comes about by "random chance". Fat change indeed!

 

[alwight]

<cut>
I don't really know exactly what you mean by adaptability, selective breeding shows that life is very adaptable indeed.

Not only does selective breeding show great adaptability, it also shows distinct limitations (which evolutionists conveniently ignore).

You are of course entitled to your opinion. lain:

I can't accept that random mutations must always be harmful, that wouldn't be random for one thing.

I've never heart anyone say that random mutations "must always be harmful", but the observed evidence is that they are very predominately harmful. This makes the bogus idea of the accumulation of random mutations leading from nothing to all that we see today quite unscientific.

Mutations themselves may indeed be random but natural selection isn't a random process. :nono:

If only harmful or disadvantageous mutations were selected for then of course a rapid decline would surely follow. But equally if advantageous mutations were positively selected for then the opposite must surely be the case. Natural selection typically selects those best adapted regardless of the supposed genetic entropy of Sanford.

Who or what does this "selecting"?

Please give us the scientific evidence that there exists a goal seeking selector at work in the world. I want to see some empirical evidence of this.

Who is this "us" btw? I really think y'all should go away and learn something of Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection and then get back to me. Preferably not from a creationist website though. lain:

Creationists seem to think that humans were somehow originally DNA perfect and that the only way is down, but hard evidence and genetics rather says otherwise, that life was originally very simply and evolved the great complexity we know today, which is the essence of adaptability if you ask me.

And evolutionists think that the immense complexity that we see in the world comes about by "random chance". Fat change indeed!

As above.

 

[Right Divider]

You are of course entitled to your opinion. lain:

It's not an opinion, it a verified and verifiable (repeatable) fact.

The fact that you call it an opinion shows that you value your opinions more than the facts.

Mutations themselves may indeed be random but natural selection isn't a random process. :nono:

Then you should have NO problem telling us how this intelligent process works. If this natural selection is not random, how is it guided? What is guiding it?

Evolutionists are always very much into using this slight of hand.

The very nature of using the word SELECTION in "natural selection" implies an intelligence as there is NO known source of a GOAL seeking selection in "nature".

Evolutionists throw out "survival of the fittest" as if this was something discovered under a microscope. When, in reality, it is a construct that they need to support their bogus theory.

Who is this "us" btw?

Us here on TOL. I really didn't think that you'd have a hard time with that one.

I really think y'all should go away and learn something of Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection and then get back to me. Preferably not from a creationist website though. lain:

Yes .... you, oh so learned ones.... how can we uneducated ones even be found in your presence?

As above.

Another nice evolutionist post full of hot air and assumptions.

 

[alwight]

It's not an opinion, it a verified and verifiable (repeatable) fact.

The fact that you call it an opinion shows that you value your opinions more than the facts.


Then you should have NO problem telling us how this intelligent process works. If this natural selection is not random, how is it guided? What is guiding it?

Evolutionists are always very much into using this slight of hand.

The very nature of using the word SELECTION in "natural selection" implies an intelligence as there is NO known source of a GOAL seeking selection in "nature".

Evolutionists throw out "survival of the fittest" as if this was something discovered under a microscope. When, in reality, it is a construct that they need to support their bogus theory.


Us here on TOL. I really didn't think that you'd have a hard time with that one.


Yes .... you, oh so learned ones.... how can we uneducated ones even be found in your presence?


Another nice evolutionist post full of hot air and assumptions.

Clearly you don't even seem to want to know the first thing about Darwinian evolution and natural selection, and I don't want to flog any dead horses atm thanks.

 

[Right Divider]

Clearly you don't even seem to want to know the first thing about Darwinian evolution and natural selection, and I don't want to flog any dead horses atm thanks.

You and others keep saying this stupid thing. Always thinking that you are the educated ones and that you're talking to fools.

We grow up learning Darwinian evolution in our stupid public school system. So we are not ignorant of what it claims.

Your ignorance of my knowledge is nothing pump yourself up about.

I noticed that you refused to actually address any of the issues that I put before you and instead move to the usual rhetoric.

You should reevaluate your a priori rejection of God and come to the knowledge of the truth (which fits perfectly well with real science).

 

[glorydaz]

You and others keep saying this stupid thing. Always thinking that you are the educated ones and that you're talking to fools.

We grow up learning Darwinian evolution in our stupid public school system. So we are not ignorant of what it claims.

Your ignorance of my knowledge is nothing pump yourself up about.

I noticed that you refused to actually address any of the issues that I put before you and instead move to the usual rhetoric.

You should reevaluation your a priori rejection of God and come to the knowledge of the truth (which fits perfectly well with real science).

It's the only card they have to play.

 

[Truster]

I believe God created the universe imperfect on purpose. That we are supposed to build is kingdom here as best we can and build/fix the universe in the image he wants. Us striving to making the universe perfect will bring us closer to him as we will be using His language to guide us (science and math). We do this out of our love and respect to Him. Math and Science are his true word and the Bible is how we use the word to strive towards the above goal. And my idea is that no religion is more right than the other, and all are welcome to worship and discuss their interpretation of the blueprint. Not only that but He does not directly intervene. But unlike deists, I don't believe he does nothing but observe. I believe he gives us hints to better interpret and apply His blueprint.

The main tenets are:
1. That Math and Science are the true word of God
2. The Bible is to be used to teach us how to use His word and not take everything in it verbatim as it is written by many who tend to contradict each other.
3. God purposely made the universe imperfect so we can fix and build His Kingdom here as best we can to get closer with Him.
4. Jesus and His death is what gave us light of what we should be like to build/ fix the universe and only though Him can we achieve perfection.
5. We can never achieve the perfection we strive to, yet we still do so out of love and respect to the Lord knowing that only through Him we can achieve the perfection we strive towards.
6. No religion is more right than the other and we can interact with each other as long as it helps aid in the blueprint the Lord left to us.
7. God does not get directly involved but instead gives us hints to what we need to do.

Now I will be happy to discuss this with anyone as I believe in what I have just stated

Heretic.

At the end of each day Elohim declared His work as good with the exception of the sixth day when He announced it was very good.

 

[alwight]

You and others keep saying this stupid thing. Always thinking that you are the educated ones and that you're talking to fools.

We grow up learning Darwinian evolution in our stupid public school system. So we are not ignorant of what it claims.

Your ignorance of my knowledge is nothing pump yourself up about.

I noticed that you refused to actually address any of the issues that I put before you and instead move to the usual rhetoric.

You should reevaluation your a priori rejection of God and come to the knowledge of the truth (which fits perfectly well with real science).

Firstly I'm not particularly keen to teach you the basics of Darwinian evolution, particularly since your "stupid" public school seems to have failed you in that.
Your first point was simply an assertion to which my own assertion would be a good enough response, since you didn't bother to outline any supposed limits to adaption that I might comment on.

Apparently we agree that mutations are random, but then you went on about accumulating random mutations being unscientific, so I pointed out that Natural Selection is not a random process, which clearly is scientific.

Then you said this:
"Who or what does this "selecting"?

Please give us the scientific evidence that there exists a goal seeking selector at work in the world. I want to see some empirical evidence of this."

That was when I realised that your appreciation of Darwinian evolution is perhaps sadly lacking.

Natural Selection is determined by the environment. Individuals that can cope with it best will tend to produce offspring with the same traits, while those that can't will likely fail. Any beneficial traits or adaptions will tend to be selected for naturally, that is the selection process. Beneficial traits or random mutations will be selected for with each new generation, building on what was before, it doesn't require any highly unlikely multiple random beneficial accumulations of mutations.
There are no supposed goals, just the so called "survival of the fittest" or perhaps the best adapted, as selected for by the often tough arena of life itself, iow the environment.

But this is all basic Darwinian evolution theory as accepted by science that most schools probably are able to convey somewhat more successfully than yours it seems. So if you want to tell me what is "unscientific" then I suggest you first acquire some rather more impressive knowledge. lain:

 

[Right Divider]

Firstly I'm not particularly keen to teach you the basics of Darwinian evolution, particularly since your "stupid" public school seems to have failed you in that.

Keep the arrogance flowing. I was not asking for lessons from you. You are fully brainwashed with the "majority opinion", so you have no need for any contrary facts.

Your first point was simply an assertion to which my own assertion would be a good enough response, since you didn't bother to outline any supposed limits to adaption that I might comment on.

Go ask ANY breeder about the limitations.

Apparently we agree that mutations are random, but then you went on about accumulating random mutations being unscientific, so I pointed out that Natural Selection is not a random process, which clearly is scientific.

Please keep up.... NON-RANDOM means directed. Those are the only two choices. It's either accidents or action. Unless you know of some third option. We'd love to hear about it.

You seem to believe that there is some unknown force selecting these "random" mutations (which are VASTLY destructive).

Then you said this:
"Who or what does this "selecting"?

Please give us the scientific evidence that there exists a goal seeking selector at work in the world. I want to see some empirical evidence of this."

That was when I realised that your appreciation of Darwinian evolution is perhaps sadly lacking.

No, I actually understand it perfectly well. This is just ANOTHER case of you needing to switch to rhetoric in place of actual factual content. Since your argument is weak, you need to distract. I totally understand that.

Natural Selection is determined by the environment. Individuals that can cope with it best will tend to produce offspring with the same traits, while those that can't will likely fail. Any beneficial traits or adaptions will tend to be selected for naturally, that is the selection process. Beneficial traits or random mutations will be selected for with each new generation, building on what was before, it doesn't require any highly unlikely multiple random beneficial accumulations of mutations.
There are no supposed goals, just the so called "survival of the fittest" or perhaps the best adapted, as selected for by the often tough arena of life itself, iow the environment.

So NOW you give "the environment" the awesome responsibility of making intelligent "selections".

But this is all basic Darwinian evolution theory as accepted by science that most schools probably are able to convey somewhat more successfully than yours it seems. So if you want to tell me what is "unscientific" then I suggest you first acquire some rather more impressive knowledge. lain:

So once again, you fall back on "majority opinion"..... nice.

You and your fallacies do not scare me at all.

The majority of science has often enough been wrong before and in need of correction. This one is no different.

 

[alwight]

Keep the arrogance flowing. I was not asking for lessons from you. You are fully brainwashed with the "majority opinion", so you have no need for any contrary facts.

Sorry but you simply inspire any arrogance I may show here.

Go ask ANY breeder about the limitations.

Since I was wanting to know what you thought was a limitation it seems I may never know, how sad, never mind.

Please keep up.... NON-RANDOM means directed. Those are the only two choices. It's either accidents or action. Unless you know of some third option. We'd love to hear about it.

Nevertheless Darwinian evolution is the result of Natural Selection which is not a random nor intelligent process, it is controlled by the requirements of the environment. If it is controlled in some way then it is not random.

You seem to believe that there is some unknown force selecting these "random" mutations (which are VASTLY destructive).

Natural Selection is clearly not unknown but is what made the hunted quick and agile and the hunters fast and merciless.

No, I actually understand it perfectly well. This is just ANOTHER case of you needing to switch to rhetoric in place of actual factual content. Since your argument is weak, you need to distract. I totally understand that.

:yawn:

So NOW you give "the environment" the awesome responsibility of making intelligent "selections".

If you actually did understand you would know that Darwinian evolution requires no intelligent selections.lain:

So once again, you fall back on "majority opinion"..... nice.

You and your fallacies do not scare me at all.

The majority of science has often enough been wrong before and in need of correction. This one is no different.

But I wasn't trying to scare you I was trying to teach you something.
Science is continuously correcting itself based on better facts and evidence, not that creationists worry too much about any of that.

 

[Right Divider]

Sorry but you simply inspire any arrogance I may show here.

I know you are, but what am I?

I guess we're all back in the 1st grade again.

Since I was wanting to know what you thought was a limitation it seems I may never know, how sad, never mind.

Nice try, more rhetoric. It seems to be the only thing that you know.

Breeders create interesting things, but those things don't start turning into other things. You can continue to fantasize that there are no limits but the FACTS of science disagree.

Nevertheless Darwinian evolution is the result of Natural Selection which is not a random nor intelligent process, it is controlled by the requirements of the environment. If it is controlled in some way then it is not random.

It's JUST too funny that you have to KEEP using terms that are related to INTELLIGENCE.... "controlled". Really, the environment is that smart.

Natural Selection is clearly not unknown but is what made the hunted quick and agile and the hunters fast and merciless.

Sure.... assuming the conclusion that you want. So .... once again .... show us how each one of these TINY mutations EACH have a "survival advantage".... Using your theory to prove your theory what is called circular reasoning.

:yawn:

:wave2:

If you actually did understand you would know that Darwinian evolution requires no intelligent selections.lain:

So says you. More bluff and bluster.

But I wasn't trying to scare you I was trying to teach you something.
Science is continuously correcting itself based on better facts and evidence, not that creationists worry too much about any of that.

Yes, that is the general idea. But some "science" remains incorrect for quite some time. Nice "put down" again, I take it with all of the other insults that your type like to use in your attempt to intimidate. Not impressed.

 

[George Affleck]

People may have their own subjective opinions about what is beneficial or not but in Darwinian terms the bottom line is pragmatic selectability and only proven in practice. If in practice something aids survival then it is beneficial, so it really doesn't matter what we each might think or say, we are only here at all imo because beneficial adaptions happen.

The problem is that so-called beneficial mutations can, by no means, be proven to be beneficial long-term which is a requirement of macro-evolution. They can only be assumed to be so (and that by discrimination) within a short time span. For example: a cat that loses its ability to grow fur by mutation but is deemed by certain humans to be rare and exotic. They are protected, fed and encouraged to breed more of their kind. Is this a beneficial mutation even considering that, if thrown back into the wild they would likely not survive?

The mutation has aided survival, and possibly hindered the survival of regular cats, due to stupid humans (apologies to hairless cat lovers everywhere). If the human was not in the picture, would the hairless cat have become extinct or flourished? The problem is it is not testable.

I don't really know exactly what you mean by adaptability, selective breeding shows that life is very adaptable indeed.

By adaptability I mean that which was programmed into the genome at creation from which various expressions produced species separation. But from your point of view, there is also latent adaptability within existing species. A moth can change wing colour from light to dark and back to light again within a few generations. A bird can lengthen or shorten its beak in response to environmental influences. These are not mutations but adaptations for which that genome already has potential. Mutations, on the other hand, are a one way street (short term).

I can't accept that random mutations must always be harmful, that wouldn't be random for one thing. If only harmful or disadvantageous mutations were selected for then of course a rapid decline would surely follow. But equally if advantageous mutations were positively selected for then the opposite must surely be the case. Natural selection typically selects those best adapted regardless of the supposed genetic entropy of Sanford.

Here is an extremely pivotal point I need you to rethink!
The random part is in the DNA, not in the adjectives that later describe the effect.

If a motor is working very well, random changes will nearly always bring it to a stop. The reason is that the list of possible changes that bring it to a grinding halt greatly outweigh possible improvements simply because it is already working very well. The same principle applies to organisms which, as many have testified, work within much narrower tolerances and often rely on other organisms which also work very well.

The other problem I have is assigning anthropomorphic attributes to a concept (natural selection) in order to conceal its impotence - but that is an issue for another time. (Pathetic Fallacy)

Creationists seem to think that humans were somehow originally DNA perfect and that the only way is down, but hard evidence and genetics rather says otherwise, that life was originally very simply and evolved the great complexity we know today, which is the essence of adaptability if you ask me.

We think that because we have been told it by the only eye witness to it all. Once having accepted it, we find overlooked affirmation all over science that it is not as outlandish as we have been led to believe.

We all have the same evidence. We do not ever, ever, deny evidence. But we also know that what you say about it is not true. Evidence does not speak for itself - someone has to interpret it.

Its not the facts we disagree on; its what is read into them. I suggest to you that we have different ideas about what constitutes hard evidence which leads us in opposite directions. (I am fortunate in having been on both sides of this debate during my lifetime)

Please consider the possibility that what you now view as hard evidence 'speaking' to you is far from scientific. (Yes, I know its a metaphor)

Can we, in spite of our presuppositions, evaluate reality? Or do we need to be told what it is because of them? Or are we simply selecting and stockpiling for ourselves certain desirable conclusions by excluding undesirable possibilities?

 

[George Affleck]

I've never heart anyone say that random mutations "must always be harmful"...

Now you have. I said it.
And I take full responsibility for it.
But context is everything.
(Hmm...I should use this as an example in my "literal" definition!)

The original comment to which our beloved caulkhead is referring is at Post 441 and is literally literated in this literal fashion:

For the creationst, all genetic change is ultimately deleterious in that it is a change from "very good". There is no higher level, within the kind, to ascend to. But not all change is genetic change. There are latent, variational potentials within the genome that environmental factors can trigger. The creationist and evolutionist disagree on what adaptability can/cannot achieve.

Note to Al: You are now allowed to call me a "twit" free of charge - once only! Should I refer to you as a caulkhead again, please take 3.

 

[alwight]

Twit!

People may have their own subjective opinions about what is beneficial or not but in Darwinian terms the bottom line is pragmatic selectability and only proven in practice. If in practice something aids survival then it is beneficial, so it really doesn't matter what we each might think or say, we are only here at all imo because beneficial adaptions happen.

The problem is that so-called beneficial mutations can, by no means, be proven to be beneficial long-term which is a requirement of macro-evolution. They can only be assumed to be so (and that by discrimination) within a short time span. For example: a cat that loses its ability to grow fur by mutation but is deemed by certain humans to be rare and exotic. They are protected, fed and encouraged to breed more of their kind. Is this a beneficial mutation even considering that, if thrown back into the wild they would likely not survive?

I don't see much need to prove something which in practice may work better than something else in a specific environment, it just does, or perhaps often doesn't. If the environment changes then what may once have been beneficial is now in a whole new ball game.

Bringing in an artificial selection example perhaps shows life's innate ability to adapt but is only a side issue here, of interest to some cat owners perhaps. Many domestic animals have probably already lost their ability to survive unaided, even if they still have their fur.

"Macro-evolution" of course implies speciation. I see the evidence that supports it combined with the evidence of the great age of the Earth and universe, and thereby conclude that indeed species do come and go over many millions of years. But without that evidence and speciation there would be no phylogenetic tree and yes I would instead probably be compelled to accept creationism as perhaps the only possible alternative before I go and live in a cave.

The mutation has aided survival, and possibly hindered the survival of regular cats, due to stupid humans (apologies to hairless cat lovers everywhere). If the human was not in the picture, would the hairless cat have become extinct or flourished? The problem is it is not testable.

I think we should simply separate natural from artificial selection as being two different cans of worms, so to speak. I presume however that you believe that any such adaptions don't require any additional DNA information to be generated, that it was all there at the beginning?

I don't really know exactly what you mean by adaptability, selective breeding shows that life is very adaptable indeed.

By adaptability I mean that which was programmed into the genome at creation from which various expressions produced species separation. But from your point of view, there is also latent adaptability within existing species. A moth can change wing colour from light to dark and back to light again within a few generations. A bird can lengthen or shorten its beak in response to environmental influences. These are not mutations but adaptations for which that genome already has potential. Mutations, on the other hand, are a one way street (short term).

Assuming that life itself had a single origin I was reading somewhere if it would be possible for an elephant (say) to evolve into a redwood tree, given billions of years or even endless time?
But frankly I don't really care, what happened, happened, there is no point in going back. I think that life can simply become whatever it needs to become within reasonably logical parameters and nothing need be restricted by existing DNA nor indeed by a supposed entropy.

I can't accept that random mutations must always be harmful, that wouldn't be random for one thing. If only harmful or disadvantageous mutations were selected for then of course a rapid decline would surely follow. But equally if advantageous mutations were positively selected for then the opposite must surely be the case. Natural selection typically selects those best adapted regardless of the supposed genetic entropy of Sanford.

Here is an extremely pivotal point I need you to rethink!
The random part is in the DNA, not in the adjectives that later describe the effect.

If a motor is working very well, random changes will nearly always bring it to a stop. The reason is that the list of possible changes that bring it to a grinding halt greatly outweigh possible improvements simply because it is already working very well. The same principle applies to organisms which, as many have testified, work within much narrower tolerances and often rely on other organisms which also work very well.

Individual life forms are machines too that also wear out, it only matters from an evolutionary pov that they last long enough to successfully reproduce and pass on their genes, while evolution itself applies only to species not individuals. Man-made machines otoh do not self reproduce nor evolve.
I think that it would be rather too easy to make presumptions about what DNA is capable of or what its restrictions are if any. Creationists have already tried it on with a supposed irreducible complexity claim which didn't work, but this now seems to be going off to the other end with perhaps claims of an upper limit and an inevitable DNA entropy. Someone with a bit of detailed genetic knowledge, experience and a creationist agenda I'm sure could probably easily confuse me with claims of say a genetic entropy. I would however prefer to hear it from a geneticist without a creationist axe to grind, which I don't think will happen. Meanwhile a cynic might think that presumably Sanford is selling his books to creationists. :think:

The other problem I have is assigning anthropomorphic attributes to a concept (natural selection) in order to conceal its impotence - but that is an issue for another time. (Pathetic Fallacy)

I'll look forward to learning more.

Creationists seem to think that humans were somehow originally DNA perfect and that the only way is down, but hard evidence and genetics rather says otherwise, that life was originally very simply and evolved the great complexity we know today, which is the essence of adaptability if you ask me.

We think that because we have been told it by the only eye witness to it all. Once having accepted it, we find overlooked affirmation all over science that it is not as outlandish as we have been led to believe.

We all have the same evidence. We do not ever, ever, deny evidence. But we also know that what you say about it is not true. Evidence does not speak for itself - someone has to interpret it.

Its not the facts we disagree on; its what is read into them. I suggest to you that we have different ideas about what constitutes hard evidence which leads us in opposite directions. (I am fortunate in having been on both sides of this debate during my lifetime)

Please consider the possibility that what you now view as hard evidence 'speaking' to you is far from scientific. (Yes, I know its a metaphor)

Can we, in spite of our presuppositions, evaluate reality? Or do we need to be told what it is because of them? Or are we simply selecting and stockpiling for ourselves certain desirable conclusions by excluding undesirable possibilities?

This now becomes more difficult because who am I to presume that perhaps there actually was no eye witness testimony, that all we have is evidence and otoh some ancient scripture?
AiG at least makes a point of denying scientific conclusion as invalid should it seem to conflict with a literal Genesis.
If you are simply going to presume that a literal Genesis automatically trumps any amount of even the most rigorous and honest science then there just is no debate to be had.

 

[alwight]

I know you are, but what am I?

I guess we're all back in the 1st grade again.

Sticks and stones?

Nice try, more rhetoric. It seems to be the only thing that you know.

Not true, I also know how many beans make five btw.

Breeders create interesting things, but those things don't start turning into other things. You can continue to fantasize that there are no limits but the FACTS of science disagree.

If I ever thought that one thing could ever became something else I would have to wave Darwin goodbye.

It's JUST too funny that you have to KEEP using terms that are related to INTELLIGENCE.... "controlled". Really, the environment is that smart.

I still don't think you're quite getting it. :idunno:
Psst I'm the one who has been explaining how intelligence is not required, at least for Natural Selection.

Sure.... assuming the conclusion that you want. So .... once again .... show us how each one of these TINY mutations EACH have a "survival advantage".... Using your theory to prove your theory what is called circular reasoning.

Must I? :sigh:

:wave2:

:wave:

So says you. More bluff and bluster.


Yes, that is the general idea. But some "science" remains incorrect for quite some time. Nice "put down" again, I take it with all of the other insults that your type like to use in your attempt to intimidate. Not impressed.

Presumably then you are well used to receiving insults from people who think an Earth less than 10,000 years old is about as unlikely as a flat one?
Did you think you'd be safe on ToL?

 

[George Affleck]

Twit!

Ha ha ha...

Someone with a bit of detailed genetic knowledge, experience and a creationist agenda I'm sure could probably easily confuse me with claims of say a genetic entropy. I would however prefer to hear it from a geneticist without a creationist axe to grind, which I don't think will happen.

You asked for it; here it is.
The following is from a paper by Michael Lynch, Department of Biology, Indiana University. He is an evolutionist and is cited by Sanford.

"Despite the current status as the dominant organism on earth, the human species is confronted with substantial mutational challenges imposed by at least three baseline genetic features: (i) a relatively high per-generation germline mutation rate at the nucleotide level; (ii) a further inflation in the mutational rate of production of defective alleles associated with aspects of gene structure; and (iii) a large cumulative burden of somatic mutations imposed by a relatively late onset at maturity. The preceding results will now be used to obtain a quantitative perspective on these three issues, as well as an evaluation of the longer-term consequences of the mutational and environmental landscape for the future genetic well-being of our species..."

"...The fundamental requirement for the maintenance of a species’ genetic integrity and long-term viability is that the loss of mean fitness by the recurrent input of deleterious mutations each generation must be balanced by the removal of such mutations by natural selection. If the effectiveness of the latter is eliminated, normal viability and fertility can be maintained to a certain extent by modifying the environment to ameliorate the immediate effects of mutations, but this is ultimately an unsustainable situation, as buffering the effects of degenerative mutations would require a matching cumulative level of investment in pharmaceuticals, behavioral therapies, and other forms of medical intervention. Given the relatively high human mutation rate and the fact that a relaxation of natural selection typically leads to 0.1% to 1.5% decline in fitness per generation in other animal species with lower mutation rates (51), this type of scenario has now gained a level of quantitative credence that was absent when Muller (49) first raised the issue..."

"...Because the genetic effective population size of humans is now very large, the alleles contributing to our growing mutation load will remain at very low frequencies for many centuries, so the damage incurred under the scenario outlined earlier need not be permanent. However, once a particular chromosomal region has acquired a mutation load in all chromosomes, even if distributed over different loci in different chromosomes, a full reassertion of the power of natural selection would be incapable of returning the population to a state better than that represented by the least-loaded chromosomal segment unless the region experienced sufficient recombination to reestablish less-loaded chromosomal segments. This issue is nontrivial in that the amount of recombination per physical distance in human chromosomes is exceptionally low, averaging approximately 10−5 crossover events per kb per meiosis (9), which is approximately 30% lower than the rate of origin of base-substitutional mutations alone in a 1-kb region."

In this last highlighted statement he is (although not approving of it or calling it by name) talking about the only known remedy which, as he says, is not a remedy at all; a full-blown eugenicizing of a population. Short of that, another 30 million years of selection in a direction completely opposite of the one that is supposed to have already occurred.

Here is part of his summary"

"Thus, the preceding observations paint a rather stark picture. At least in highly industrialized societies, the impact of deleterious mutations is accumulating on a time scale that is approximately the same as that for scenarios associated with global warming—perhaps not of great concern over a span of one or two generations, but with very considerable consequences on time scales of tens of generations. Without a reduction in the germline transmission of deleterious mutations, the mean phenotypes of the residents of industrialized nations are likely to be rather different in just two or three centuries, with significant incapacitation at the morphological, physiological, and neurobiological levels. Ironically, the genetic future of mankind may reside predominantly in the gene pools of the least industrialized segments of society. Possible solutions to this problem, including multigenerational cryogenic storage and utilization of gametes and/or embryos, will raise significant ethical conflicts between short-term and long-term considerations."

It appears that geneticists recognize that there is a problem that is undeniable.

Text in bold is my highlighting and is not part of the original paper

 

[alwight]

It appears that geneticists recognize that there is a problem that is undeniable.

Text in bold is my highlighting and is not part of the original paper

Happily for us I think we'll both be long gone before any genetic doo doo hits the fan. lain:
Maybe global warming will get us first? :think:
Eugenics anyone?

I think I read somewhere that for humans natural selection isn't really much of a driving force any more, that more people would need to die.
Perhaps we need a few more wars or plagues to sort out the fittest people to carry on our species?
What if antibiotics stop working soon?

Not to blow my own trumpet but I think I mentioned before that even in my lay ignorance I instinctively felt that without a more positive natural selection going on there could be trouble down the line genetically. But otoh geneticists will I suspect tend to highlight if not ramp up perceived problems and their research budgets?

Levity aside however I don't see this or anything else I mentioned as being anything but a purely naturalistic issue and a result of millions of years of evolution, presumably you would disagree, the fall maybe? Sanford seemed to think so. :think:

 

[Right Divider]

Sticks and stones?

Not true, I also know how many beans make five btw.

If I ever thought that one thing could ever became something else I would have to wave Darwin goodbye.

Please let us know what type of Darwinian you are. There are so many versions of this fairy story out there these days, it's impossible to know what we are discussing.

Both classical Darwinian gradualists and neo-Darwinian whatever's believe that things change into other things by this undeniable mechanism that none of them can identify.

I still don't think you're quite getting it. :idunno:
Psst I'm the one who has been explaining how intelligence is not required, at least for Natural Selection.

No, you really have not been explaining any such thing. You just keep repeating your old worn out story.

"Selection" is an ACTION that describes a CHOICE MADE. Now you say that "Nature" is the one making these choices and yet you do not provide any evidence that this is even remotely possible for matter and energy to do. You continually attribute INTELLIGENT attributes to nature.

Presumably then you are well used to receiving insults from people who think an Earth less than 10,000 years old is about as unlikely as a flat one?
Did you think you'd be safe on ToL?

I, personally, do not care what people think about the age of the earth. The point is that even if the universe is extremely old, the theory of evolution is still shown to be complete false.