toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?

[Alate_One]

Your link is totally unhelpful to a reasoned debate. We have a topic and your link is a distraction. We realise it works to the atheist's advantage to ensure no clear and honest dialogue takes place, but for once could you stick to a single discussion and quit posting things that require the reader to assume your conclusion?

It is? He was the one that said "magic mutations" can't happen. I linked one. Do you have some kind of problem with the fact that there ARE beneficial mutations?

 

[Alate_One]

This example that you gave doesn't come anywhere near to the situation that i said had to be true for your conclusion to be true. Here is what i stated again Had to be true to make your conclusion true: You must be able to take ALL or NEARLY ALL of the protein coding sequences in a genome and replace them with a variation that produces the same protein and get absolutely no difference in phenotypic effect.

I can show you that I am able to do so without ACTUALLY taking every sequence and replacing it. It's called demonstration by example. I don't actually have to replace every part when I show that I can replace them in very distant organisms. If a human and a yeast can swap parts, then why shouldn't I expect most genes in most mammals to be swappable? Or even most vertebrates? And there are plenty more examples where genes from one species function correctly in another. I'm not going to look them all up for you.

If you're going to insist that I *actually* replace every gene in the genome to satisfy you, you're going down the tired old road of creationists demanding impossible levels of evidence, when the evidence that has already been presented to them easily suffices.

 

[voltaire]

IOW, the coding and non coding sequences are identical in large parts of related organisms because they produce the same phenotypes in related organisms. that master control gene complex will produce eyes in other creatures as well. There may be phenotypic unintended results though.

 

[voltaire]

If a human and
a yeast can swap parts, then
why shouldn't I expect most
genes in most mammals to
be swappable? Or even most
vertebrates? And there are
plenty more examples
where genes from one
species function correctly in
another.------You may be able to swap out single genes between yeasts and humans with no phenotypic difference. You may be able to do this for a majority of protein coding genes in fact, if done one at a time. What you cannot do is replace ALL OF THEM with genes from other species ALL AT THE SAME TIME. being able to swap out small slices of genetic code between distantly related organisms in no way shows that you can replace A WHOLE GENOME with variant sequences that each provide identical proteins. Please explain why you think it does.

 

[Alate_One]

You may be able to swap out single genes between yeasts and humans with no phenotypic difference. You may be able to do this for a majority of protein coding genes in fact, if done one at a time. What you cannot do is replace ALL OF THEM with genes from other species ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

Well no because that's physically impossible with current technology. Also, there ARE genes that are actually unique to humans, though it is only a handful.

But you're missing the point again. The point isn't that every last gene is identical to another related organism (so your ridiculous demand is actually irrelevant anyway). It's just that a large majority of the genes are the same when they don't have to be.

Again we can go back to the 95% figure in Chimps vs. humans. Such a high percentage of identical sequence is not necessary from a functional perspective.

 

[Cruciform]

What is so scary about believing that God created everything and gave his creations the ability to adapt in small ways?

I do believe that. I think that God created basic matter ex nihilo, along with the physical and chemical laws which function in the evolutionary process, and that from this matter all of the various life forms developed by means of natural selection and other accompanying mechanisms. As the biblical text indicates: "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures...'" (Gen. 1:24).

the links you have posted are flawed, written by people who who will never accept creationism.

QUESTION: How is it that you claim to know such things about people whom you've never met? (By the way...will you ever accept evolution?)

Now tell me why would someone assume that one would be uneducated for throwing out the information you have posted, and yet consider someone that throws away the word of God in pursuit of flawed science (Darwin) a genius ?

You misunderstand. No one has "thrown away the word of God," but merely certain erroneous human interpretations of the word of God. Huge difference there.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[voltaire]

Well no because that's
physically impossible with
current technology. Also,
there ARE genes that are
actually unique to humans,
though it is only a handful.
But you're missing the
point again. The point isn't
that every last gene is
identical to another related
organism (so your
ridiculous demand is
actually irrelevant anyway).
It's just that a large
majority of the genes are
the same when they don't
have to be.----------Let me rephrase it then. What you cannot do is replace ALL the protein coding sequences that are identical between organisms AT THE SAME TIME without producing a different phenotypic effect.

 

[voltaire]

Thats even given the fact there is no technology to do that. IOW, there will be a different phenotypic effect if that technology were possible.

 

[voltaire]

We haven't even discussed what would happen if we swapped out non protein coding sequences with non related species like yeasts. I am still talking about those sequences that are identical between apes and humans.

 

[Stripe]

It is?

Yes, and you know full well that it is entirely unhelpful and I just finished explaining why. But of course it is of endless value to you that this tangent continue as long as possible so you have an excuse to talk about anything rather than have to respond honestly to the challenges you face.

He was the one that said "magic mutations" can't happen. I linked one. Do you have some kind of problem with the fact that there ARE beneficial mutations?

You know the response to this. We do not agree that this change arose through a random mutation. There was a change, but it is highly presumptuous to call it an accident when the paper makes it very clear that the observations lead to great speculation as to a cause.

You are not justified in responding to a debate over evolution with the insistence that we accept your assumptions of mutation and selection as facts. We disagree with you. Try to deal with that.

If you have a reason why we should accept that beneficial changes are only possibly the result of random chance and do not come at a greater cost than the benefit provides then post that.

But, of course, you do not have any such evidence and never will have.

 

[Alate_One]

We haven't even discussed what would happen if we swapped out non protein coding sequences with non related species like yeasts. I am still talking about those sequences that are identical between apes and humans.

Again, you're making assertions which are contrary to the evidence we have. WE HAVE swapped sequences with no effect. You cannot swap EVERY protein coding sequence since a few are actually unique to humans and necessary to distinguish us from other apes, obviously.

As I said you don't need to be able to swap all of them only a large number. The fact that we could swap the cyt C with a yeast begs the question, why is our cytC so similar to other primates?

You just keep asserting what you want to be true or you want to test, it has no rational basis.

 

[Alate_One]

Yes, and you know full well that it is entirely unhelpful and I just finished explaining why.

Deal with the information that is presented. You don't have to accept all of the conclusions of the paper to discuss the facts. Explain why the change is found in the pattern it is. We are waiting.

You know the response to this. We do not agree that this change arose through a random mutation. There was a change, but it is highly presumptuous to call it an accident when the paper makes it very clear that the observations lead to great speculation as to a cause.

I've been over your DNA fairies before. It's not presumptuous to discount an imaginary mechanism for which there is not a shred of evidence. By your logic I should be forced to assume that Thor generates lightening when discussing meteorology.

If you have a reason why we should accept that beneficial changes are only possibly the result of random chance and do not come at a greater cost than the benefit provides then post that.

You know full well that science doesn't prove anything to 100% accuracy and that it is logically impossible to prove a negative. But there is no reason to accept your assertions without evidence. There is NO evidence for what you are saying and we've been over this. I've shown plenty of evidence for randomness in mutations.

YOU are the one making a distraction here, as usual. I'm through with your moronic "debate tactics". You have no data, and nothing useful to offer to the discussion.

 

[Stripe]

Deal with the information that is presented.

Typical atheist tactic. If you feel a little pressure just go overboard on "information" and demand an answer to it all.

You don't have to accept all of the conclusions of the paper to discuss the facts.

We are already discussing facts. You don't like it and are forced into talking about other things.

Explain why the change is found in the pattern it is. We are waiting.

Respond honestly to Y. We are waiting.

I've been over your DNA fairies before.

And I've explained numerous times why your representations of what I suggest are all lies.

You know full well that science doesn't prove anything to 100% accuracy and that it is logically impossible to prove a negative.

Don't complain to me about how unconvincing your position is. :idunno:

But there is no reason to accept your assertions without evidence.

You just finished admitting there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of your assertions. And I don't present ideas without evidence. Here's an idea. You'll do anything to avoid a clear and forthright discussion with Y. Here's my evidence.

There is NO evidence for what you are saying and we've been over this.

There's plenty of evidence for what I say.

I've shown plenty of evidence for randomness in mutations.

You've done plenty of asserting mutations and asserting the randomness of them. Usually while posting altogether new papers.

YOU are the one making a distraction here, as usual. I'm through with your moronic "debate tactics". You have no data, and nothing useful to offer to the discussion.

Feel free to just talk to Y. and stay on topic. :thumb:

 

[Alate_One]

Typical atheist tactic. If you feel a little pressure just go overboard on "information" and demand an answer to it all.

It's hardly overboard on information. There's a variation in a gene called Foxo. If you have one copy of this gene your odds of living to 100 go up 2X. And not just living to 100, but living WELL to 100 (staying healthy). If you have two copies your odds go up 3x. This particular form of the gene is scattered at a low rate among varying populations of the world. I can explain it as random mutations that have popped up probably in particular families in the past that happen to have a beneficial effect. If you have another idea, please explain this pattern using your interpretation. Why should some humans have this obvious positive benefit and others not?

Don't complain to me about how unconvincing your position is. :idunno:

I'm telling you about the nature of science. I guess all of science is unconvincing to you then.

You just finished admitting there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of your assertions. And I don't present ideas without evidence.

You do it constantly! See below.

There's plenty of evidence for what I say.

Which is?

You've done plenty of asserting mutations and asserting the randomness of them. Usually while posting altogether new papers.

Oh noes you mean there might be LOTS of papers that show what I say?

 

[Yorzhik]

I would argue there isn't a strong vested interest in obtaining a "certain pattern". People recognized the pattern long before there was evolution.

People recognized categories, but not a pattern of animals evolving into other animals before there was evolution.

When the tree of life disappears, so does evolution. So anyone wanting to keep their job will support the tree of life. And supporting the tree of life is easy when you are the one weighing the factors that produce the tree.

Funny that, Here's a mutation that does keep humans alive and healthy for much longer than normal. I wish I had it . . .

We've talked enough that you can stop playing stupid.

When I say "count on" that means a mechanism that one could rely on most of the time (I knew there was a reason to keep that macro).

So the question remains, do you want your theory to rely on magic mutations to survive? Since selection can't do it, it's magic or ___.

As I said, the non-working ones won't show up. And you are forgetting about gene duplication.

Right, the non-working ones won't show up, but they cost you time, material, and energy. And then when a working one shows up, it doesn't give you a selective advantage. Yikes.

And if you want to bring the numbers back, the tiny time, material, and energy cost will happen so often that evolution will never get off the ground.

As Barb already pointed out, you seem to have forgotten about sexual reproduction. If your lucky mutant gets to reproduce . . .guess what? You have at least 15,000 lucky mutant offspring the very next generation. and then each one of them can go on and do the same and so on and so on . . . So that even if your offspring is more like 10 per generation, the multiplication of sexual reproduction can spread your mutation all over the place in short order, since most organisms have relatively short generation times. And of course the partners might have other mutations that have a synergistic effect on the other mutations and you have all sorts of combinations that may have a selective advantage.

In short you have a real failure to understand how biology works. You think organisms are like fragile pieces of human technology that can break when bumped the wrong way, but they aren't their resilience is what allows them to change.

Yeah, and all the other organisms in the same population are out-producing you without the mutation by magnitudes more. How to overcome that problem? Selection won't do it, so it's either magic or ___.

I'm the only one between the two of us that wants to stay in reality. Your pejorative does not apply since I've shown how the biology you claim I fail at is the very biology that causes evolution to fail.

 

[Flipper]

There's plenty of evidence for what I say.

Pls post to thread thnx

 

[Stripe]

thnx

yr wlcm.

 

[Alate_One]

Lets start from the beginning on your point that thousands of possible dna sequences can produce the protein cytochrome-C. You claim that most of all of these sequences can replace each other in a genome without any phenotypic effect. Let us grant you that for now. You also claim that God could have used almost limitles different genomes in both the chimp and the human. How do you arrive at that conclusion from the assertion you made that i have allowed to stand?

Dear Volt, if you don't believe me read this CREATIONIST paper that assesses the "common design" argument.

Here's an excerpt.

A very popular argument is that similarity does not necessarily indicate common ancestry but could also imply common design … While this is true, the mere fact of similarity is only a small part of the evolutionary argument. Far more important than the mere occurrence of similarity is the kind of similarity observed. Similarity is not random. Rather, it forms a detectable pattern with some groups of species more similar than others. As an example consider a 200,000 nucleotide region from human chromosome 1. When compared to the chimpanzee, the two species differ by as little as 1-2%, but when compared to the mouse, the differences are much greater. Comparison to chicken reveals even greater differences. This is exactly the expected pattern of similarity that would result if humans and chimpanzees shared a recent common ancestor and mice and chickens were more distantly related. The question is not how similarity arose but why this particular pattern of similarity arose. To say that God could have created the pattern is merely ad hoc.

That's right, an honest creationist . . . crazy world isn't it?

 

[voltaire]

That's right, an honest
creationist . . . crazy world
isn't it?-----no, it's a compromised creationist flowering into a full fledged darwinian evolutionist who leaves no room for God at all in his creation. I'm trying to find where our argument left off before life got in the way.

 

[voltaire]

Part of the reason why there is genetic more similarity between gene sequences in chimps and humans than there is between mice and humans is that humans and chimps share more physiology and body chemistry in common with chimps than they do with mice. There is also preprogammed evolution of barinomes that came off the ark that accounts for some of it. It occurs through tranposon duplication and movement in the genome. If you compare non protein coding segments of humans and chimps with that of other animals, i bet the difference isn't as stark.