Moderator: Moderators
From what I know about the nature of DNA, genetics and Mendels laws of genetics (namely that are inherent species limitations imposed by the genetic makeup of all living things) the account about Adam and Eve, ie two humans parenting the human race, seems to me to be the most plausible explanation of our origins.
denmark wrote: Neither exist and that is hardly surprising because there is ZERO evidence for either. Once one starts to travel down the road of make believe and fantasy, new fantasies must be invented to account for each new logical absurdity until we finally arrive at this convoluted mess of various and contradictory Christian doctrines.
"Delusion" and "deluded" are your words, not mine.mgb wrote:denmark wrote: Neither exist and that is hardly surprising because there is ZERO evidence for either. Once one starts to travel down the road of make believe and fantasy, new fantasies must be invented to account for each new logical absurdity until we finally arrive at this convoluted mess of various and contradictory Christian doctrines.
So you doubt that there can be revelation? The materialist says all revelation is 'delusion' but I am very wary of a world view that requires so many otherwise normal people to be deluded, in order to justify itself.
They are Richard Dawkins' expressions.Denmark wrote: "Delusion" and "deluded" are your words, not mine.
I know of a number of people for whom God is real and has given them understanding and experiences. They are normal people who are not obviously unbalanced in any way. Quite the contrary.I'm not saying they don't claim some kind of vague affirmation of their faith, a feeling that God tells them they are right. But I know of very few who claim to have had any specific revelation from God
“Mutations impose a substantial burden on fitness, disease, and longevity through the introduction of deleterious alleles into the population. A deeper understanding of deleterious variation in humans will have profound implications for disease-mapping studies, personal genomics, and predictive medicine.� (Link)Neatras wrote:Show me one example of this happening in nature. Show me that genetic entropy is more than just a creationist's wet dream.Still small wrote: The natural accumulation of even mildly deleterious mutations eventually weakens the species to a point of extinction outweighing beneficial accumulation effects unless intelligent intervention occurs by breeders to avoid the problems.
As it is estimated that 99% of all species which have existed are now extinct, it would be hard to determine which were subject purely to genetic loading as opposed to the assumption of environmental changes. It all depends upon which a priori one holds to.Fact of the matter is, it's a bunk argument that your side came up with because of a grave misunderstanding of genetics. You oversimplify until you wind up with a purely strawman-sized argument.
For all your blathering on how deleterious mutations stack, you can't actually demonstrate that with any natural species.
In the case of these two mutations, the benefit is only seen in an environment affected by malaria. Even so, having two copies of the HbS gene (upto 25% of the offspring) causes Sickle Cell disease, leading to a slow painful death. Those offspring with no HbS gene die of malaria. Either way, effectively culling/decreasing the population. Outside of the malaria affect environment, there is no benefit whatsoever, only disadvantage.DrNoGods wrote:Not when you consider a population. The haemoglobin mutation HbS can offer protection against malaria, but can also cause sickle-cell anemia. So both good and bad outcomes are possible from the mutation overall. Another haemoglobin mutation called HbC also offers protection against malaria, and both of these mutations developed, and persisted, because of the beneficial effect of offering some resistance to malaria.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articl ... aria.shtml
Those mutations which are majorly deleterious will be culled out fairly quickly, I agree. But those mutations which are only mildly deleterious/near neutral will not be selected against as readily but will accumulate and become fixed within the population to a point of eventually severely hampering the health of the population (see links in previous post). A common misconception is that because the population’s lifespan is increasing, the population genetics must be improving. Our greater lifespan and survival is due more to the increase of health standards and medical knowledge where we can treat disease, resulting from deleterious mutation accumulation, and thus preserving the deleterious genes, thereby weakening the population overall. Hence the increases of such occurrences of various cancers and other medical conditions.This is consistent with the expectation of ToE ... a mutation that offers a benefit to survival and reproduction will persist in the population, while if one person or a small subset of the population develop a deleterious mutation that one person or subset may not survive or reproduce, thus removing the deleterious mutation from the overall population.
Your argument seems to be that most mutations are deleterious, and therefore the expectation of ToE is that eventually populations would be wiped out because repeated deleterious mutations would overwhelm the beneficial mutations and lead to that result. But that is not how it works in the real world. Populations do survive and beneficial mutations do become fixed to the benefit of the overall population, while individuals or small groups may be removed by deleterious mutations which don't become prevalent or fixed because those individuals do not survive and reproduce at sufficient rates.
Variation within species is due more so to combinations and specialisation of existing alleles within the genome, not new information from mutations. The recombination or specialisation allows for species adaptation to particular niches within the environment. Whilst mutations can and do occur, the ratio of deleterious to beneficial mutations, one would more likely see a weakening of the population before a benefit. Any major change in the entire environment would see a major culling of unsuitable variations, leaving only the better suited variations. That is, until there is another major shift in environmental factors, resulting in the remainder being unfit for survival. This is clearly seen in the current concerns over global warming, in that species cannot adapt quickly enough via mutations to survive the changes.TSGracchus wrote: [Replying to post 23 by Still small]
Still small: �I agree with you that either through selective breeding or via environmental changes that we arrive at various species, illustrated by your excellent example of the various dog breeds from the (grey) wolf. By the combination of different alleles, we get long hair, medium hair, short hair, etc. As the particular breed gets established, the genome becomes relatively stable but the differences between breeds is an example of, as you said, loss. That is a loss of genetic information, not new mutations. I was in full agreement with you until you said -
'But over the course of time new mutations will occur and more variation will be introduced.'
As mention in the previous post, those mutations which are only mildly deleterious/near neutral will not be selected against as readily but will accumulate and become fixed within the population to a point of eventually severely hampering the health of the population.�As I indicated in a previous post, test results show the vast majority of mutations are deleterious or neutral and very few are beneficial. The natural accumulation of even mildly deleterious mutations eventually weakens the species to a point of extinction outweighing beneficial accumulation effects unless intelligent intervention occurs by breeders to avoid the problems.�
You have overlooked an important point about deleterious mutations: In nature they don't survive. They die or are otherwise unsuccessful at leaving descendants. The species is culled and only the successful survivors and breeders pass on their genes. The unsuccessful mutations, the unfortunate combinations of genes, don't have descendants.
To a greater degree, many humans only survive due to the provided medical support to deal with medical and health conditions, without which they would die.Still small: �Even so, the practice of selective breeding for certain traits (species/breeds) can and does lead to certain mutational problems. For example - German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Bulldogs, Great Danes, Saint Bernards, Neapolitan Mastiffs and Retrievers, the larger breeds, are prone to suffer from hip dysphasia. Breeds including Dalmations, Newfoundlands, the Bichon Frise and Miniature Schnauzers can suffer from urinary bladder stones. Breeds including the English Bulldog, French Bulldog, Boston terrier, Pug, Pekingese, Shih Tzu and Cavalier King Charles Spaniel tend to suffer from Brachycephalic Syndrome (brachycephalic literally means “short-headed,�) resulting in respiratory complication. This selective breeding, the loss of genetic information and the genetic loading of deleterious mutations eventually weakens the species to the point of extinction. “
And indeed, most dog breeds would go extinct in the wild. They only survive because there are humans in their environment who tend to cull the undesirable mutts by not breeding them (spay and neuter) or by providing the support they need to survive.
Sadly, it is not only the positive and neutral mutations which survive but also the slightly deleterious/near neutral which will accumulate and become fixed, causing ever increasing medical conditions “and what is observed.�Still small: �Whilst there may be instances of a beneficial mutation, overall, genetic mutation has a negative effect for survival which is contrary to the expectations of ToE.�
Genetic mutation provides variability. Most mutations are neutral, many are negative, and only a very few may be positive. (You probably have a hundred or more differences in your own genome that neither of your parents possessed. Mutation is that common.) But it is the positive and neutral mutations that survive to breed, and that is exactly what the theory of evolution proposes and what is observed.
Again, this is due to specialisation, reduced variability, of existing information, not mutations as, again, is seen in the concern over global warmingAnd note, that in my previous post I had a cooler climate selecting for thicker fur, more body fat and shorter limbs to facilitate the retention of heat, a warmer climate would have selected for thinner fur, less body fat and longer limbs so that the survivors would be more efficient at shedding excess heat.
So if the climate changed again, back to warmer, those cold adapted little mammals would likely go extinct because of their decreased variability, as have around 99.9% of all known species.. The inability to adapt (mutate) quickly enough, naturally, to survive the changes.
That is why evolution isn't about progress. It is about stability. And since the environment changes, and that change may include population density, the stability is not static but dynamic. As a species we have to adapt to our own population and the other environmental changes that are inevitable.
Can you provide references to articles, etc, that conclude or indicate that “[t]he early ancestors of Latimeria, the coelocanths, used to live quite close to the surface�?Another point: The early ancestors of Latimeria, the coelocanths, used to live quite close to the surface. A few adapted to the ocean depths where conditions are slow to change. So, having adapted to a stable environment, any change would likely be counted as deleterious. And any attempt to re-colonize their former environment, would be almost impossible because those environments are now inhabited by species adapted to them with whom Latimeria could not compete. Persons who do not understand this label coelocanths as primitive or un-evolved.
No, I think, by doing a bit of added research in to relevant articles on my own, I’ve been able to navigate through the waters you’ve attempted to ‘muddy up’. Hopefully, you too, by reading those papers will get a clearer understanding of the matter.Is there any other confusion or misunderstanding that I can try to clear up? Is some further explanation necessary?
YOU used the terms. Blaming Dawkins does not help.mgb wrote:They are Richard Dawkins' expressions.Denmark wrote: "Delusion" and "deluded" are your words, not mine.
I know of a number of people for whom God is real and has given them understanding and experiences. They are normal people who are not obviously unbalanced in any way. Quite the contrary.I'm not saying they don't claim some kind of vague affirmation of their faith, a feeling that God tells them they are right. But I know of very few who claim to have had any specific revelation from God
is eviscerated."very wary of a world view that requires so many otherwise normal people to be deluded"
Even so, having two copies of the HbS gene (upto 25% of the offspring) causes Sickle Cell disease, leading to a slow painful death. Those offspring with no HbS gene die of malaria. Either way, effectively culling/decreasing the population.
Our greater lifespan and survival is due more to the increase of health standards and medical knowledge where we can treat disease, resulting from deleterious mutation accumulation, and thus preserving the deleterious genes, thereby weakening the population overall. Hence the increases of such occurrences of various cancers and other medical conditions.
Vague? To whom are they vague?Denmark wrote: they "claim some kind of vague affirmation of their faith, a feeling." My point is that they are not personally deluded; they believe in the unsupported 'visions,' delusions, or frauds of others like Joseph Smith and Saul of Tarsus.
