How is there reality without God?

[EarthScienceguy]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #178]

That was a lot of cutting and pasting was there a point to all the cutting and pasting?

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

Imagine a population of 100,000 apes, the putative progenitors of humans. Suppose that a male and a female both received a mutation so beneficial that they out-survived everyone else; all the rest of the population died out—all 99,998 of them.

Genetic analysis shows that did not happen in the line that led to modern humans, and I can't think of a case where it has happened. You have an example?

No this is a hypothetical example.

If your hypothetical example is contrary to the way things work in reality, isn't that an important clue for you?

Going from 2 individuals to 100,000 individuals in one generation seems pretty unlikely for apes. How did you think that was going to work?[/quote]

Again it is not going to work

Again, if your hypothetical example is contrary to the way things work in reality, isn't that an important clue for you?

And this repeated every generation (every 20 years) for 10 million years, more than the supposed time since the last common ancestor of humans and apes. That would mean that 500,000 beneficial mutations could be added to the population (i.e., 10,000,000/20).

Each of us has about 100 mutations that weren't present in either of our parents. So let's say that 0.01percent of all mutations are favorable. In a population of 100,000 individuals, we'd then have about 1000 favorable mutations per generation. Since we observe that a mutation harmful enough to prevent one from leaving offspring is rather rare in humans (let's say 10%, a gross overestimate). So about 100 favorable mutations per generation.

You have a couple of issues here.

• 1st. You are not reading the hypothetical situation correctly. Every 20 years all of the offspring die off but 2. This would mean there would be 500,000 beneficial mutations.

Again, if your hypothetical example is contrary to the way things work in reality, isn't that an important clue for you?

• 2nd. In your example where does the 0.01 percent mutations that are favorable come from? Most mutations are neutral like 90% and 10% are deleterious.

Most of us have about 100 mutations that were not in either parent. If you were correct, we'd see a huge number of genetic disorders. But I'd be willing to look at your data for the ratio of neutral to harmful mutations. What do you have? BTW, remember that "neutral", "harmful" and "beneficial" only count in terms of environment. So it changes as the environment changes. Would you like some examples? Meantime, show us your data for that 90% and 10%.

Currently, there is a good number of favorable mutations going on in human populations right now. These include:
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science ... in-humans/

In Africa, a new mutation that provides very good immunity to malaria but does not kill homozygotes, is spreading rapidly. HbC is replacing HbS alleles because it protects people from malaria, but it does not kill a person who happens to get 2 copies of the mutation.

Another recent mutation is one that changes the myostatin gene to produce much greater strength.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... ities.html

Beneficial mutations are almost nonexistent.

See above. You've been badly misled.

Now back to your example if each of us has about 100 mutations that weren't present in either of our parents. That means that 1.4E-11 beneficial mutations will be expressed per generation. That means that in a population of 100,000 there will be 1.4E-6 beneficial mutations per generation. This means in 10 million years with 500,000 generations there would be 70 beneficial mutations expressed.

Again, if your assumptions don't match up with the reality, that's a pretty good sign that your assumptions are not very good.

Humans have about 30,000 genes. So this is why we have dozens of alleles for each gene locus. There's been a lot of evolution. Keep in mind that Adam and Eve could have had at most, 4 alleles for each gene locus. The rest evolved.

Experimental evidence shows that there is very little variation actually only a few thousand years worth.

From 4 to about 50 in a few thousand years seem like a lot, doesn't it?

• Dorit et al.8 examined a 729-base pair intron (the DNA in the genome that is not read to make proteins) from a worldwide sample of 38 human males and reported no sequence variation. This sort of invariance Dorit, R.L., Akashi, H. and Gilbert, W., Absence of polymorphism at the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome, Science 268(5214):1183–1185, 1995.

You might not be aware of the fact that non-coding DNA (what creationists call "junk DNA") often has other functions. And such functional introns are understandably not very likely to change. In fact, that's one of the ways that we can find those that are functional. Thought you knew. Not surprisingly, the stuff that's highly variable between individuals and species, tends to be the stuff for which we can find no function.

No. You're assuming that all the DNA differences between humans and chimps are functional. But that's demonstrably wrong.

Are you trying to make the case that Junk DNA is not used?[/quote}

I'm pointing out that much of what you guys call "junk DNA" actually has functions. But a lot of it doesn't. Interestingly, it has now been shown that many new genes are formed by mutation of non-coding DNA:
“Where do new genes come from?” is a long-standing question in genetics and evolutionary biology. A new study from researchers at the University of California, Davis, published Jan. 23 in Science Express, shows that new genes are created from non-coding DNA more rapidly than expected.

“This shows very clearly that genes are being born from ancestral sequences all the time,” said David Begun, professor of evolution and ecology at UC Davis and senior author on the paper.

Geneticists have long puzzled about how completely new genes appear. In a well-known model proposed by Nobel laureate Susumu Ohno, new functions appear when existing genes are duplicated and then diverge in function. Begun’s laboratory discovered a few years ago that new genes could also appear from previously non-coding stretches of DNA, and similar effects have since been discovered in other animals and plants. “This is the first example of totally new genes still spreading through a species,” said Li Zhao, a postdoctoral researcher at UC Davis and first author on the paper.
https://socgen.ucla.edu/2014/01/23/new- ... oding-dna/

Pseudogenes have long been labeled as “junk” DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins.

You cannot say that most of the pseudogenes have no function because it has not been explored. The function is different than from coding DNA but pseudogenes are being shown to be far from useless.

"Recent" in this case would mean "in the last 60 years." When I was an undergraduate in the 1960s, there were papers in the literature on the functions of non-coding DNA. Your guy is a bit behind on this.

[Jose Fly]

Well, yes this is the first time I have argued through this with anyone. The next time I do will be much better.

Noted.

• 1st you still have to give me an example of rapid speciation. Using the evolutionary definition of speciation. And I am pretty sure you will not because of the evolutionary definition of species.

Yes I did. You just waved it away after moving the goalposts (claiming postzygotic reproductive isolation doesn't count).

• 2nd There is a problem with the evolutionary definition of speciation. Which is defined as: "a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding." The problem is that this is not true.

I think you mean "species", not "speciation".

In my previous post I showed how this evolutionary definition of species is not true. With the example of the Camel and Lama.

Because that's what we would expect under evolutionary common descent....blurry lines between related taxa.

Do you believe camels and llamas are in the same "kind"? If so, based on what?

So yes I do believe in rapid speciation but not in the evolutionary sense. The observational evidence actually confirms the creationist view of kinds. Which says that most animals can interbreed up to the classification of the family.

That makes no sense. What sort of "rapid speciation" are you talking about, and how does it occur?

So you will not find any example of speciation using the evolutionary definition of species. But there are many examples of species (breeds) using the creationist definition.

There are all sorts of examples of speciation where the new species is incapable of producing offspring with the parent species. It's extremely common in plants for example (e.g., polyploidy producing differing chromosome numbers, which prevents interbreeding).

[JoeyKnothead]

...
No this is a hypothetical example.
...

There's the problem. We can frame hypotheticals in such ways as we wish to produce a favored outcome. Looking at facts is a far superior method of finding truth.

The fact of evolution is indisputable, but the particulars are fair game. In a hypothetical where a group gets whittled down to just two individuals, their likelihood of successfully generating an entire new population approaches zero - regardless of how proud they are of their novel genes.

[The Barbarian]

1st you still have to give me an example of rapid speciation.

Apple maggot fly from hawthorn maggot fly. In less than 200 years.

Primrose O. gigas from O. lamarckania by a polyploidy event.

Using the evolutionary definition of speciation.

Biological species concept
The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature,

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/biologic ... s-concept/

There is a problem with the evolutionary definition of speciation. Which is defined as: "a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding." The problem is that this is not true.

It is a misunderstanding of the biological species concept. It's a lot more complex than you seem to think it is. For example, it's not useful in any population that does not sexually reproduce. Bacteria, for example.

With the example of the Camel and Lama.
These are separate species since they cannot reproduce in nature. It requires human intervention, and would even if they were in the same places.

A camel and a lama can mate

No, they can't. And don't. We can artificially inseminate them. At this point, only a male camel and female llama can produce offspring, but so far, none of the offspring have been able to reproduce. So different species by the scientific definition. Oddly, camels and llamas have the same number of chromosomes, so they should be able to interbreed in principle (other than the anatomical problems) but apparently, some other genetic incompatibility prevents the hybrids from reproducing.

Wolves, coyotes and dogs: three distinct species that can interbreed.

Wolves and dogs are the same species, Canis lupis. Canis lupis lupis and Canis lupis familiaris.

In fact, all species of the genus Canis can mate and produce fertile offspring (Wayne et al., 1997, re: A. P. Gray, Mammalian Hybrids).

Would you provide us with a case where racoon dogs interbred with domestic dogs, wolves or other species of Canis?

So you will not find any example of speciation using the evolutionary definition of species.

See above. You've been misled about that.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

If your hypothetical example is contrary to the way things work in reality, isn't that an important clue for you?

This is done all the time to find the maximized possibility.

Going from 2 individuals to 100,000 individuals in one generation seems pretty unlikely for apes. How did you think that was going to work?

It is not. It is called maximizing the possibility.

Most of us have about 100 mutations that were not in either parent. If you were correct, we'd see a huge number of genetic disorders. But I'd be willing to look at your data for the ratio of neutral to harmful mutations. What do you have? BTW, remember that "neutral", "harmful" and "beneficial" only count in terms of the environment. So it changes as the environment changes. Would you like some examples? Meantime, show us your data for that 90% and 10%.

You were correct in pointing out that my 10% was off.

• Deleterious protein mutations are commonly thought of in terms of how they compromise the protein’s ability to perform its physiological function. However, mutations might also be deleterious if they cause negative effects on one of the countless other cellular processes. The frequency and magnitude of such collateral fitness effects are unknown. Our systematic study of mutations in a bacterial protein finds widespread collateral fitness effects that were associated with protein aggregation, improper protein processing, incomplete protein transport across membranes, incorrect disulfide-bond formation, induction of stress-response pathways, and unexpected changes in cell properties. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1918680117

• The distribution of fitness effects of mutation plays a central role in constraining protein evolution. The underlying mechanisms by which mutations lead to fitness effects are typically attributed to changes in protein specific activity or abundance. Here, we reveal the importance of a mutation’s collateral fitness effects, which we define as effects that do not derive from changes in the protein’s ability to perform its physiological function. We comprehensively measured the collateral fitness effects of missense mutations in the Escherichia coli TEM-1 β-lactamase antibiotic resistance gene using growth competition experiments in the absence of antibiotic. At least 42% of missense mutations in TEM-1 were deleterious, indicating that for some proteins collateral fitness effects occur as frequently as effects on protein activity and abundance. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1918680117

The correct number is more like 42% deleterious.

Now let's look at how many beneficial mutations researchers have found.

• Large-scale reference data sets of human genetic variation are critical for the medical and functional interpretation of DNA sequence changes. Here we describe the aggregation and analysis of high-quality exome (protein-coding region) DNA sequence data for 60,706 individuals of diverse ancestries generated as part of the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC). This catalog of human genetic diversity contains an average of one variant every eight bases of the exome, and provides direct evidence for the presence of widespread mutational recurrence. We have used this catalog to calculate objective metrics of pathogenicity for sequence variants, and to identify genes subject to strong selection against various classes of mutation; identifying 3,230 genes with near-complete depletion of predicted protein-truncating variants, with 72% of these genes having no currently established human disease phenotype. Finally, we demonstrate that these data can be used for the efficient filtering of candidate disease-causing variants, and for the discovery of human ‘knockout’ variants in protein-coding genes. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19057

• Out of this high ratio of variants (one in eight bases shows variation, they said), there should be some proportion, even if small, that improves fitness. But we search the paper in vain for any mention of beneficial mutations. There’s plenty of talk about the disease. The authors only mention “neutral” variants twice. But there are no mentions of beneficial mutations. You can’t find one instance of any of these words: benefit, beneficial, fitness, advantage (in terms of mutation), improvement, innovation, invention, or positive selection. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/a_billion_genes/

Notice again how no beneficial mutations are mentioned in this paper that was published in nature.

• More than half of the approximately 7.5 million variants found by ExAC are seen only once. But collectively, they occur at a remarkably high density — at one out of every eight sites in the exome. For each gene, the authors contrasted the expected and observed numbers of variants that cause the production of truncated proteins, to search for regions containing lower-than-predicted levels of protein-truncating variants. This allowed them to identify several thousand genes that are highly sensitive to such variants — that is, unable to function normally after loss of one copy of the gene, even if the other copy is intact. Most of these genes have not yet been associated with disease, but mutation probably leads to embryonic death or strongly affects fitness in some other way. These genes are also intolerant of variants in regulatory DNA sequences that markedly alter levels of RNA synthesis from the gene, and are more likely than other genes to be implicated in genome-wide association studies of common disease. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19057
  
  
  

  Currently, there is a good number of favorable mutations going on in human populations right now. These include:
  https://bigthink.com/surprising-science ... in-humans/
  
  In Africa, a new mutation that provides very good immunity to malaria but does not kill homozygotes, is spreading rapidly. HbC is replacing HbS alleles because it protects people from malaria, but it does not kill a person who happens to get 2 copies of the mutation.
  
  Another recent mutation is one that changes the myostatin gene to produce much greater strength.
  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... ities.html

  What are you trying to prove by this statement? Are you trying to say that these traits are going to become fixed in the the human genome? How is that going to work?
  

  Now back to your example if each of us has about 100 mutations that weren't present in either of our parents. That means that 1.4E-11 beneficial mutations will be expressed per generation. That means that in a population of 100,000 there will be 1.4E-6 beneficial mutations per generation. This means in 10 million years with 500,000 generations there would be 70 beneficial mutations expressed.
  
  Again, if your assumptions don't match up with the reality, that's a pretty good sign that your assumptions are not very good.

  So, if my assumptions which are not assumption match up with reality then that is a pretty good sign that my assumptions that are not assumptions are correct.
  
  The above are not assumptions but they come from actual EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. In fact, more recent experimental evidence from nature suggests that this is actually too high a rate for beneficial mutations. Do you have any experimental evidence for a beneficial mutation rate?
  
  Saying that some people have beneficial mutations is not experimental evidence of beneficial mutation rate.
  

  From 4 to about 50 in a few thousand years seem like a lot, doesn't it?
  
  Dorit et al.8 examined a 729-base pair intron (the DNA in the genome that is not read to make proteins) from a worldwide sample of 38 human males and reported no sequence variation. This sort of invariance Dorit, R.L., Akashi, H. and Gilbert, W., Absence of polymorphism at the ZFY locus on the human Y chromosome, Science 268(5214):1183–1185, 1995.
  
  You might not be aware of the fact that non-coding DNA (what creationists call "junk DNA") often has other functions. And such functional introns are understandably not very likely to change. In fact, that's one of the ways that we can find those that are functional. Thought you knew. Not surprisingly, the stuff that's highly variable between individuals and species, tends to be the stuff for which we can find no function.

  Again your belief system simply does not support experimental evidence.
  
  • Another piece of evidence involves single nucleotide polymorphisms (hereafter SNPs), which are mutations common to the human genome (meaning that many humans share them), being present in the human population at a frequency of roughly 1%. These provide great insight into both medical research and population genetics. Many humans share large blocks of SNPs (called haplotypes), suggesting that all humans could have descended from a relatively recent demographic event. Wheelwright, J., Bad genes, good drugs, Discover23(4):52–59, 2002.
  • ‘Why does LD extend so far? LD around an allele [or variant form of a gene] arises because of selection or population history—a small population size, genetic drift or population mixture—and decays owing to recombination [crossing over], which breaks down ancestral haplotypes [blocks of SNPs]. The extent of LD decreases in proportion to the number of generations since the LD-generating event. The simplest explanation for the observed long-range LD [such as what we find in humans] is that the population under study experienced an extreme founder effect or bottleneck: a period when the population was so small that a few ancestral haplotypes gave rise to most of the haplotypes that exist today.’ Reich, D.E., Cargill, M., Bolk, S., Ireland, J., Sabeti, P.C., Richter, D.J., Lavery, T., Kouyoumjian, R., Farhadian, S.F., Ward, R. and Lander, E.S., Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411(6834):199–204, 2001.
  The above evidence shows that the human race went through a bottle neck less than 10K years ago.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #185]

Apple maggot fly from hawthorn maggot fly. In less than 200 years.

These can actually interbreed.

Primrose O. gigas from O. lamarckania by a polyploidy event.

I will give you this one. So what is the frequency that polyploidy events happen?

Because it does not increase speciation.

Despite this high incidence, we find no direct evidence that polyploid lines, once established, enjoy greater net species diversification. Thus, the widespread occurrence of polyploid taxa appears to result from the substantial contribution of polyploidy to cladogenesis, but not from subsequent increases in diversification rates of polyploid lines. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19667210/

And so far only polyploidy is the only way to form a new species.

No, they can't. And don't. We can artificially inseminate them. At this point, only a male camel and female llama can produce offspring, but so far, none of the offspring have been able to reproduce. So different species by the scientific definition. Oddly, camels and llamas have the same number of chromosomes, so they should be able to interbreed in principle (other than the anatomical problems) but apparently, some other genetic incompatibility prevents the hybrids from reproducing.

This is perfectly consistent with the creation model. The lama and the camel would be the extent of this kind.

In fact, all species of the genus Canis can mate and produce fertile offspring (Wayne et al., 1997, re: A. P. Gray, Mammalian Hybrids).
Would you provide us with a case where racoon dogs interbred with domestic dogs, wolves or other species of Canis?

A raccoon dog is not from the Canis genus.

[William]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon."

I placed that into my Journal List.

Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

A tree is not even known to exist to be called a 'tree', if that which does the observing and the naming of, did not exist.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

The only way that would be possible is if that which is named "God" is that which does the observing, and this would mean that all who observe, are "God" in the sense of the ways in which observing is achieved.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

Pieces of the past can be observed as long as there are pieces of the past to observe.

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

If true, re the present Universe, this would indicate that it is being produced as it is being observed.

It may be an imagined thing which is able to be experienced as a real thing, depending upon the position of the observer in relation to it.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

If your hypothetical example is contrary to the way things work in reality, isn't that an important clue for you?

This is done all the time to find the maximized possibility.

"Possibility" is not always reflective of reality.

What we got here is a hypothetical - with all the problems of em - presented as a way to fuss about possibilities, with all the problems of possibility.

So how can we fix this problem with hypotheticals, and the fact that possibility doesn't necessarily reflect reality?

We hypothesize us up a god, and fetch about hollering, "It's possi-bul, it's possi-bul!"

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #185]

Apple maggot fly from hawthorn maggot fly. In less than 200 years.

These can actually interbreed.

Horses and donkeys can interbreed, but don't. As apple and hawthorn maggot flies can, but don't. As camels and llamas can but don't. We can get them to interbreed in captivity, but that's not what species is about.

Primrose O. gigas from O. lamarckania by a polyploidy event.

I will give you this one. So what is the frequency that polyploidy events happen?

Because it does not increase speciation.

Well, let's take a look...

Proceedings of the Royal Society
02 September 2020
Polyploids increase overall diversity despite higher turnover than diploids in the Brassicaceae

After evaluating a total of 94 phylogenetic models of diversification, we found that ploidy influences diversification rates across the Brassicaceae. We also found that despite diversifying at a similar rate to diploids, polyploids have played a significant role in driving present-day differences in species richness among clades. Overall, in addition to highlighting the complexity in the evolutionary consequences of polyploidy, our results suggest that rare successful polyploids persist while significantly contributing to the long-term evolution of clades.

And so far only polyploidy is the only way to form a new species.

Nope. As you just learned, apples introduced to North America, resulted in the evolution of a new species of dipteran.

That's not the only one:
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/ ... pecies-of-

Georgia crawfish mutates into new species, takes over Europe
The New York Times is the latest to cover the unusual spread of the marbled crayfish, a species that didn't even exist 25 years before - in Germany or anywhere else. But it turns out that the small crustaceans on far shores have a direct connection to one Georgia riverbed and its surrounding waterways.

Take a trip down to southeast Georgia and you'll find restaurants, stores - and people - named after the Satilla River. It's one of the main waterways there, snaking its way through several counties. Look hard enough at the right times and you'll also find Procambarus fallax - or the slough crayfish.

It's where the story of a major problem overseas appears to begin, though exactly how is a bit of an oddity. According to Frank Lyko, a biologist at the German Cancer Research Center, studies of the six-inch-long marbled crayfish have turned up many strange things.

For one, they're all female. And yet they reproducing - by cloning. Scientists have seen this happening and a population explosion in several countries. So they researched the small creatures - down to their very DNA - and found out they owe their heritage to their cousins in the Satilla River. But it evolved.

Quickly.

In a single crawfish a mutation occurred. According to researchers, somehow, two sex cells fused and produced a female embryo with three copies of each chromosome. Despite this major change, the crawfish don't suffer from deformities.

So it survives, it clones - and spreads.

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/ge ... -515391619

No, they can't. And don't. We can artificially inseminate them. At this point, only a male camel and female llama can produce offspring, but so far, none of the offspring have been able to reproduce. So different species by the scientific definition. Oddly, camels and llamas have the same number of chromosomes, so they should be able to interbreed in principle (other than the anatomical problems) but apparently, some other genetic incompatibility prevents the hybrids from reproducing.

This is perfectly consistent with the creation model.

But completely incompatible with creationist beliefs. And as you see, they are not a species, since hybrids are so far completely unable to reproduce. BTW, very rarely, mules are able to reproduce. This fits evolutionary theory, and common ancestry; we'd expect such things from different species that have a common ancestor. It's a complete mystery in terms of creationist beliefs.