KINDS and ADAPTATION

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Donray
Guru
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 3 times

KINDS and ADAPTATION

Post #1

Post by Donray »

EarthScienceguy wrote:

I believe in adaptation not evolution. Adaptation says that organisms change because of heredity not mutations.

God created kinds of animals. So yes He only created one species of humans.


In another topic when I asked EarthScienceguy what he believed instead of evolution he wrote back the above. I asked him several times to explin his theory and he incapable of explanation and debate of his theory.
I would like to find from any Christians that believes like EarthScienceguy something about this belief and some proof using known fossils and how these fit in.
How do you explain Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthal) and The Denisovans that both had sex with modern humans? If you are from Europe for your background you have some Neanderthal DNA.

Since this theory uses “kinds of animals� that a lot of creationist do could someone list all the kinds that were on the ark and then the list of animals, insects, bacteria, etc that these kinds adapted into. Are you with a lot of the undereducated people that think the world is less then 10K years old?

What is adaptation and not evolution? Does it have anything to due with DNA changing? Could someone point out all the articles that support this theory? I would hope that there is a list of science articles that shows your science of adaptation of kinds on the ARK to all the diversity we have.

I would like to have a debate on this theory since Christians like to debate evolution we should have this debate also.

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #401

Post by Still small »

Diagoras wrote:So we can perhaps infer that in 6,700,000 generations, we’d expect to see approximately 100x the number of genetic changes. One part of the study’s recent conclusion that you avoided mentioning was that there was evidence of some separated populations being ‘on their way to speciation’ - in other words, becoming a new species, not E.coli.
Firstly, let’s remember that E.coli is a species of bacteria of which there are already many variations or species of bacteria falling into two main groupings -
Gram Positve -
* Streptococcus
* Staphylococcus
* Clostridium botulinum
Gram Negative -
* Gonorrhea
* Escherichia coli (E. coli)
* Pseudomonas aeruginosa
* Acinetobacter baumannii
* Cholera
These species can also develop sub-species, for example, the superbug MRSA is a staphylococcus species, remembering that they are all still bacteria. This variation or speciation can come about via epigenetics and/or mutations.
Let’s have a look at the possibility of random, unguided mutations being the able to bring about the necessary changes required for this speciation. In a research study, Gauger and Axe took two proteins (Kbl and BioF) from E.coli that look extremely similar but have distinct functions. Bacteria are genetic workhorses for evolutionary research, precisely because they are capable of rapid adaptation - as long as it takes only one or two mutations. Three coordinated mutations are a stretch even for bacteria, if all of the intermediates are neutral (have no beneficial effect for the organism). But for one of these two enzymes to evolve the other’s function, it would take at least seven and probably many more mutations. The waiting time for seven coordinated neutral mutations, so as not to be eliminated by natural selection, to arise in a bacterial population is on the order of 1027 years. To put that in some sort of perspective, remember that the universe is only about 1010 years old. It can’t have happened.
The methodology of so-called molecular clocks is, to some extent, circular reasoning because of the requirement of a presupposition of ToE and deep time.
The source for that argument is a creationist website. I’ll leave it up to the general reader to decide whether a truly unbiased, evidence-based approach is being used or not.
And I shall leave it up to the general reader to decide whether or not your comment is based upon your philosophical bias against research which may oppose your view on this subject. This attempt to discredit the linked article is similar to an ad hominem whereby trying to discredit the source due to an inability to discredit the actual findings of the paper.
The ‘Common Designer’ argument fails the test of Occam’s Razor, as genetic evolution can be more fully explained by observable, testable independent experiment, whereas ‘God did it’ has to introduce the extra step of a deity’s involvement.
The main problem with your argument here, is that your explanation has absolutely no starting point to compare with the ‘God did it’ step you claim I introduce. Your argument fails, scientifically, to even start the race. If you wish to have a fair comparison, let us both start from the point with life somehow existing. I believe the standard evolutionary process is that this life started (by an unknown process) as a single cell, being the very start of the single ‘tree of life’, which somehow multiplied. Over time, from the copying mistakes and duplications, natural selection gradually ‘weeded out’ the organisms with the copying mistakes in DNA which was previously required to function for survival and reproduction but no longer did so. These organisms, therefore, had no advantage over other organisms whose ‘copying mistakes and duplications’ provided functions which allowed them to better survive the existing or new environment. Now these ‘copying mistakes and duplications’ which caused changes in the organisms did not occur by providing complete advantageous function in a single step. These new functions occur by changing one nucleotide at a time but without causing loss of functionality for survival. These changes or copying mistakes gradually accumulate in an unguided process but, by chance, at the right point in the right section of DNA, again without causing loss of functionality, being neutral in effect so as to avoid being deleted by natural selection. This continues until somehow a new combination of nucleotides provide a new function. Now, for the general reader, this new function is not something like a complete eye or wing. No, it is merely a new protein which facilitates a new function within the cell’s mechanisms. To produce something like an eye would require millions upon millions of these small single changes occurring in the right unguided sequence , in the same section out of millions of DNA sections and without causing loss of functionality. This accumulation until complete must go unnoticed by natural selection (being near neutral) so as to be passed onto one generation after another to enable the next unguided copying mistake to add to the sequence. Also this accumulation must be reproduced several times throughout a population so as to avoid the great possibility of being lost because of some other loss of vital functionality caused by a multitude of deleterious mutations. How long does it take for one function to arrive by one neutral or near neutral copying mistake at a time, at one generation at a time? The rate of one mutation of the correct type, in the right sequence, at the right time (what is known as a beneficial mutation ) is 1 in 1000 neutral or deleterious mutations that could remove the sequence bearing organisms by natural selection. This process continues on until we arrive at the millions of various surviving species we see today (plus many more lost along the way).

Now, starting from the point with life somehow existing, again starting from an unknown process, I believe this starting point involved multiple ‘trees of life’ as opposed to a single tree. An ‘orchard of life’ as some may refer to it. This is supported by the abrupt appearance and then stasis of complete life forms found with in the geological column. (I believe the geological column to be a record of layers formed during a catastrophic flood event with fossils found as a record of rapid burial within particular niches. But that’s another story for another time.). Each original life form or baramin then reproduced allowing for limited variation from existing genetic information. This variation or speciation allowed for the adaptation to environmental niches of the time. This variation appears, by all scientific experimentation, to be limited to within a range similar to the taxonomic level of Family.
Either God drew up the ‘plans’ and just ‘set off’ the natural processes that we now call genetics, OR he’s personally involved in every single genetic change that’s ever happened and ever will. In the former case, we can just as easily describe the process without God.
Actually both but neither is truly correct. God drew up the ‘plans’, with a full set of genetic information for each particular baramin knowing, in advance, the result of each genetic variation. Such things which may be considered ‘poor design’ are sometimes the result of God withdrawing from some aspects of authority over His creation due to His allowance of man’s freewill and subsequent results. (Again, another story for another time and sub-forum.)
Another point to ponder for the general reader: we’re forty pages into this debate, and really no further forward. It’s perhaps rather telling that the discussion is repeatedly side-tracked from the original discussion, and demands for evidence to back up claims are often studiously ignored.
Well I agree yet I can’t help it if some others cannot/do not read my posts or try to distract by running off on side-track issues but I have on a number of occasions outlined my understanding of ‘Kinds and Adaptation’ via speciation from the original baramin or ‘created kind’ through epigenetics and specialisation for various environmental niches starting, I believe, from page 2
Still small, on what (scientific) basis do you believe tetrapods and Tiktaalik were concurrent species, and when did they live on Earth?
I believe I addressed this point in my previous post but on a ‘(scientific) basis’ from your perspective (evolutionary), the finding of tetrapod tracks in levels below that where Tiktaalik fossils were found. This should indicate, from your perspective, that tetrapods existed before Tiktaalik and as tetrapods still exits, they also must have existed during the time of Tiktaalik. Thus being concurrent species. As a general guide, tetrapods were and are terrestrial and Tiktaalik appears to be aquatic or semi-aquatic much like ‘guppies’ and ‘mudskippers’ of today. As to the question, ‘when did they live on Earth?’, both definitely before the flood which buried them with tetrapods also continuing to exist today in various forms. As for Tiktaalik, being a specific species, other species within the Family may also and probably do exist today.

Have a good day!
Still small

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #402

Post by Diagoras »

There are a lot of points from the previous two posts by Still small that warrant a response, but I’d prefer to direct some of my post to the wider audience, so haven’t included the usual ‘Replying to’ header. Also, got a blank post the first time, so I will post in two parts:

1. The use of ‘a priori’
I don’t have an issue with anyone using this phrase in its sense of definition (1) as quoted above, i.e. ‘deductive’. I do, however, take offence at people using it in the sense of ‘without reference to facts’ unless they can clearly show how this is is a true statement. Science does rest upon assumptions, yes - but when practiced properly, any assumptions made are stated openly for other scientists to test and question repeatedly, and are discarded or changed when proved false.
...such as evolution via mutations, duplication and natural selection going beyond the Family level of taxonomy. This belief by evolutionary scientist is based solely upon extrapolation and assumption. This has never been proven via the scientific method.
Here’s a good example of why I get upset reading rubbish like the quote above. It took me all of about fifteen seconds to type ‘evidence for macroevolution’ into Google to find an extremely well-written paper that explains the scientific case for ‘common descent’:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

To the general reader, I urge you to consider whether anyone blithely stating that there’s ‘no evidence’ for something has really made the effort to look for said evidence.
we ALL have a priori according to the bias of our chosen worldview
Sadly, this is an all too common false equivalence thrown up like a smokescreen by creationists. Again, “science adjusts its views based on what’s observed�. It’s that ‘observed’ bit that tells us that science isn’t in the business of deciding what’s true beforehand, without examination. The fundamental essence of science is experimentation.

2) The fossil record
I think you may have misunderstood my italicised ‘should’, but not to worry. I’m more interested in this statement:
Granted, there have been mass extinction episodes but on what do ‘you’ base this ‘99%’ figure?

<underlining mine>

Are you accepting that mass extinctions have happened in the past? If so, can you state how many you think there were, and approximately when they occurred? The reason for asking is that I understood you to be a Young-Earth Creationist, so I’m having trouble conceiving of how the evidence of mass extinctions can be incorporated into that worldview. And if it can, please show how this is not an a priori claim.

3) Tiktaalik and mutations
Each new population of adaptation (species), either through epigenetics or loss of existing genetic information and, to a minor degree, mutations continued to adapt via natural selection. This adaptation appears to be limited to within the taxonomic level of Family as shown via experimentation and the fossil record which often sees the abrupt appearance of life forms without evolutionary precursors, then stasis.
I can do no better in reply than once again directing the general reader to the FAQ section of http://www.talkorigins.org/. Particularly relevant to this debate, I’d recommend ‘Macroevolution’, ‘Are Mutations Harmful’, and ‘The Evolution of Improved Fitness by Random Mutation plus Selection’. There are many more articles, all of which reference multiple published studies and are periodically updated, but I accept that not everyone wishes to spend a long time reading them. My point, again made for the general reader, is this: when blanket statements claiming that evidence is limited or non-existent for a particular theory can be so easily shown to be false, then it only demonstrates a lack of understanding of the topic concerned.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #403

Post by Diagoras »

Moving onto the second of the two preceding posts:

4) Bacteria and ‘coordinated mutations
Let’s have a look at the possibility of random, unguided mutations being the able to bring about the necessary changes required for this speciation.
This leads into a fairly well-known (and definitely wrong) argument about statistical improbability. I invite the general reader who might be persuaded by this argument to consider the opposing view, again from an article at the talkorigins FAQ website:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/

In particular, scroll down to section 1.2.3 ‘Statistical impossibility of proteins?’.

5) The ‘ad hominem’ argument
From the same article immediately linked to above, I once again invite the general reader to scroll down to the end, where you’ll find section 6.4 ‘A postscript on creationist standards of scientific scholarship’. It’s three paragraphs long, and sets out the author’s experience of debating with a Dr. Gish (a creationist), and his reasons why he believes creationist arguments are widely rejected by the scientific community. I reject creationism for exactly the same reasons.

6) The Common Designer argument
your explanation has absolutely no starting point to compare with the ‘God did it’ step you claim I introduce.
I think (but please correct me if I’m wrong), that this ‘starting point’ alludes to the extant ‘open problem’ of abiogenesis. In that case, that is a separate issue, as the theory of evolution does not and never has attempted to explain how life first arose. Your argument is therefore a straw man.

The paragraph continues with a reasonable simple description of evolution, although obviously I’d encourage the interested reader to seek a better understanding elsewhere. The interesting thing (to me) is found in the subsequent paragraph, outlining a creationist view, where we on two separate occasions see the phrase ‘another story for another time’. First of all, the word ‘story’ is revealing in itself, but it also shows the paucity of evidence to support the theory suggested. To be crystal-clear, what’s the evidence for claiming this:?
Such things which may be considered ‘poor design’ are sometimes the result of God withdrawing from some aspects of authority over His creation
Are you proceeding from a known, or an assumed cause, when you say such things, Still small?

In spite of a few diversions from the main point, I feel there might be a glimmer of progress here. After all, you have apparently accepted that some mutations occur due to natural selection, as well as the fact that mass extinction events have occurred. But given that I’ve provided some comprehensive resources outlining evolutionary theory, could you let us know what are the specific, fundamental scientific axioms relating to evolutionary genetics that you are claiming to be wrong?

Oh, and in response to your ‘going off-grid’ for a while, no problem at all. No need to apologise. Enjoy the time off.

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #404

Post by Still small »

Diagoras wrote: Once again, I apologise for the delay in responding to your post and I appreciate your patience and that of the ‘general reader’. So let’s get started once again.
1. The use of ‘a priori’
I don’t have an issue with anyone using this phrase in its sense of definition (1) as quoted above, i.e. ‘deductive’. I do, however, take offence at people using it in the sense of ‘without reference to facts’ unless they can clearly show how this is is a true statement. Science does rest upon assumptions, yes - but when practiced properly, any assumptions made are stated openly for other scientists to test and question repeatedly, and are discarded or changed when proved false.
I, too, have no issue with the process of science, regardless of who is conducting it, in the use of a priori except when the end result is then stated as ‘proven fact’. Any building built upon a ‘foundation of sand’ will always be susceptible to collapse. It’s fine to say, “l believe this [whatever conclusion] to be true� but one can only take it based upon one’s faith in the a priori. Once again, the a priori is not ‘proven fact’.
Here’s a good example of why I get upset reading rubbish like the quote above. It took me all of about fifteen seconds to type ‘evidence for macroevolution’ into Google to find an extremely well-written paper that explains the scientific case for ‘common descent’:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

To the general reader, I urge you to consider whether anyone blithely stating that there’s ‘no evidence’ for something has really made the effort to look for said evidence.
I, too, would urge the general reader to read your linked paper. But as one does so, I would also urge them to read it one section or part at a time and then read the corresponding section of the critique of that paper to determine the standard of the argument for such predictions or evidence. (Also, I would encourage you to read the footnotes for each paper to help explain.) The argument of the author of the Talk Origin paper is based in part on his inability to differentiate between “predicting� an event and “interpreting evidence� to support a hypothesized event. 
we ALL have a priori according to the bias of our chosen worldview
Sadly, this is an all too common false equivalence thrown up like a smokescreen by creationists. Again, “science adjusts its views based on what’s observed�. It’s that ‘observed’ bit that tells us that science isn’t in the business of deciding what’s true beforehand, without examination. The fundamental essence of science is experimentation.
What then, of common descent or macro-evolution , has actually been observed during experimentation?
2) The fossil record
I think you may have misunderstood my italicised ‘should’, but not to worry. I’m more interested in this statement:
Granted, there have been mass extinction episodes but on what do ‘you’ base this ‘99%’ figure?

<underlining mine>

Are you accepting that mass extinctions have happened in the past? If so, can you state how many you think there were, and approximately when they occurred? The reason for asking is that I understood you to be a Young-Earth Creationist, so I’m having trouble conceiving of how the evidence of mass extinctions can be incorporated into that worldview. And if it can, please show how this is not an a priori claim.
Of course I believe in mass extinction. Well, one at least and I think you may know to which one I’m referring. The only difference between our a priories is that your’s appeared to reference the location of the fossil burial and layering as being ‘time related’. Whereas I reference them as environmental habitation and mobility related, e.g. deep ocean, continental shelf, coastal, inland, mountains, etc, etc, about 6-8 thousand years ago.. (BTW, I suppose you can still consider me to be a YEC.)
3) Tiktaalik and mutations
I can do no better in reply than once again directing the general reader to the FAQ section of http://www.talkorigins.org/. Particularly relevant to this debate, I’d recommend ‘Macroevolution’, ‘Are Mutations Harmful’, and ‘The Evolution of Improved Fitness by Random Mutation plus Selection’. There are many more articles, all of which reference multiple published studies and are periodically updated, but I accept that not everyone wishes to spend a long time reading them. My point, again made for the general reader, is this: when blanket statements claiming that evidence is limited or non-existent for a particular theory can be so easily shown to be false, then it only demonstrates a lack of understanding of the topic concerned.
While there is some interesting stuff on your suggested link, to the general reader, your response may appear like your form of a ‘Gish Gallop’ to a supposed ‘blanket statement’. I’ll be the first to agree that there is genetic variations within species in order to deal with environmental variances. Though, as shown by the Gauges & Axe paper which I linked previously, chance mutations alone for a specific result, especially within such a short period of generations, seems extremely unlikely. Whereas, as I suggested, epigenetics, (the switching on and off of pre-existing genes) would be a better explanation. For the general reader who may not fully grasp epigenetics, here are a couple of links which may help explain it fairly simply - A Super Brief and Basic Explanation of Epigenetics for Total Beginners and Epigenetics – It’s not just genes that make us.

As I have said previously, each new population of adaptation (species), either through epigenetics or loss of existing genetic information and, to a minor degree, mutations continued to adapt via natural selection. This adaptation appears to be limited to within the taxonomic level of Family as shown via experimentation.

Though, I do note that there was no actual response to my comments regarding Tiktaalik being a concurrent species as opposed to the oft touted transitional to tetrapods.

Have a good day!
Still small

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #405

Post by Still small »

Diagoras wrote: Moving onto the second of the two preceding posts:

4) Bacteria and ‘coordinated mutations
Let’s have a look at the possibility of random, unguided mutations being the able to bring about the necessary changes required for this speciation.
This leads into a fairly well-known (and definitely wrong) argument about statistical improbability. I invite the general reader who might be persuaded by this argument to consider the opposing view, again from an article at the talkorigins FAQ website:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/

In particular, scroll down to section 1.2.3 ‘Statistical impossibility of proteins?’.
Here we are with Dawkins’ "Methinks it is a weasel." programming argument to dispel the ‘probability argument’. I have no problem with this particular demonstration. . . . except if one is going to suggest that it is in any way a realistic comparison with the (evolutionists’) process of natural selection to produce new or novel proteins.
1. The author of the paper uses Dawkins’ example of a ‘28’ letter sequence though he realistically refers to a ‘141’ base sequence for a protein. This is a far longer sequence to achieve.
2. Dawkins’ program also has a predetermine ‘goal’ sequence for which the program is selecting. Natural selection has no predetermine goal as it cannot predict future environmental needs nor the timing of it’s arrival.
3. The program is designed to “examined all the mutated progeny and selected the one that had most similarity (however slight) to the line from Hamlet.� And then uses this as the basis for the next generation. As each generation progresses, the correctly positioned letters are held or locked in. If 3 letters fit the ‘goal’ sequence, only the remaining 25 spaces are regenerated. In realistic natural selection, if a letter can be mutated in the first place, it can by chance be mutated in future generations. Nothing is locked in.
4. In the next generation, all available locations mutate. Within genetics, this is not so with maybe only one or two positions mutating per generation.
5. Most mutations are neutral or near neutral, being only slightly deleterious. Some are extremely deleterious causing that line of progeny to cease immediately. The Talk Origin site list numerous papers which clearly states that beneficial mutations are very rare. Dawkins’ program has no deleterious or near deleterious combinations to stop the sequence from continuing.

A more realistic program (if any budding programmers out there wish to attempt it) would be to have, as the author suggests, a ‘141’ letter sequence which generates a new sequence with only two or three positions ‘mutating’ in each generation. (This would be an extreme fast mutation rate considering that simple bacteria has a much lower mutation rate being about 3 per 100,000 nucleotides per replication.) This program would be ‘unaware’ of the actual final ‘141’ letters needed and, therefore, does not ‘lock in’ any particular variations. A second program, having no ‘influence’ on the first program, is designed to ring a bell if a particular ‘141’ letter sequence appears on the screen. This second program also recognises a series of ‘2 letter’ (deleterious) and ‘10 letter’ (near deleterious) combinations, which, if at any point they appear anywhere within any ‘141 letter’ generation, are counted until a total is reached of, say 10,000, being a reasonable starting population. At this point, the computer shuts down (extinction). (This program also ignores the fact of the ‘gene correcting mechanism’ within the cell to correct such ‘copying errors’, mutations.)
Without doing the math, I have a feeling, that the program may require more than 43 generation and half an hour to arrive at the required ‘141 letter’ sequence, if the computer, itself, does not shutdown beforehand. Yes, Dawkins’ program does cleverly show that random sequences can be achieved but it is far from similar to the (evolutionists’) process of natural selection to produce new or novel proteins.

5) The ‘ad hominem’ argument
From the same article immediately linked to above, I once again invite the general reader to scroll down to the end, where you’ll find section 6.4 ‘A postscript on creationist standards of scientific scholarship’. It’s three paragraphs long, and sets out the author’s experience of debating with a Dr. Gish (a creationist), and his reasons why he believes creationist arguments are widely rejected by the scientific community. I reject creationism for exactly the same reasons.
As to the author’s comments regarding Duane Gish’s debating style, it is not for me to defend as I was not there nor read anything about it (other than the author’s comments). As to the idea of failure to present arguments to peer-reviewed journals as stated here -
“At my debates with Dr. Gish I have stressed my view that "creation science" is actually pseudoscience, and that the failure of its proponents to present their arguments in the peer-reviewed scientific literature reveals the status of their scholarship to be on par with that of dowsers, UFO enthusiasts and believers in a "Flat Earth."
The purpose of the peer-review process if for researchers to present their papers in order to be assessed by others who are considered experts in that particular field of research so as to weed out errors, anomalies and dodgy work. Those researchers of the creationist or anti-evolution persuasion do present their papers to those considered experts in that field of research and have their work published in a number of peer-reviewed journals. What is often criticised is their failure to present their papers to those journals or reviewers who are not in that field of research, e.g. evolutionists. But if the argument is that the only ‘creation based’ or ‘creation conclusion’ papers that should be accepted as true and reliable are those that pass the review process of evolutionists, then to be on a level playing field, the only ‘evolution based’ or ‘evolution conclusions’ papers that should be accepted are those that pass the review process performed by creationists. Here is a Link on the fallacy of the ‘peer-reviewed journal’ argument.
6) The Common Designer argument
your explanation has absolutely no starting point to compare with the ‘God did it’ step you claim I introduce.
I think (but please correct me if I’m wrong), that this ‘starting point’ alludes to the extant ‘open problem’ of abiogenesis. In that case, that is a separate issue, as the theory of evolution does not and never has attempted to explain how life first arose. Your argument is therefore a straw man.
But as I’ve stated elsewhere, you cannot win a relay race without a ‘first leg’ runner. Therefore, would not the asking for an explanation for “the ‘open problem’ of abiogenesis� be no different to the evolutionist requesting to ‘show us this Creator God’ or ‘where did He come from?’, etc? One may as well present a theory for colour variations within unicorn species without the need to provide evidence of the real existence of unicorns.
First of all, the word ‘story’ is revealing in itself, but it also shows the paucity of evidence to support the theory suggested. To be crystal-clear, what’s the evidence for claiming this:?
‘Me thinks that thou dost read to much into a colloquialism.’ But whatever straw man to make your argument seem plausible. :)
In spite of a few diversions from the main point, I feel there might be a glimmer of progress here. After all, you have apparently accepted that some mutations occur due to natural selection, as well as the fact that mass extinction events have occurred. But given that I’ve provided some comprehensive resources outlining evolutionary theory, could you let us know what are the specific, fundamental scientific axioms relating to evolutionary genetics that you are claiming to be wrong?’
Such axioms or assumptions that new functions and thereby, variations, arise by chance mutations within DNA and thus adding genetic information which is then selected for according to future changes within the environment. I believe that most variations arise due to epigenetics, where new functions are a reaction to environmental pressures, from the switching on or off of existing genetic information. Surviving mutations within DNA are a result of a breakdown of the cell’s inbuilt correcting mechanism and the accumulation of beneficial mutations is extremely rare. Another axiom or assumption being that of a Universal Common Ancestor which is purely an extrapolation of that which is usually referred to as micro-evolution (variation within a species). There has yet to be experimental evidence which clearly shows variation beyond the Family level of taxonomy.
Oh, and in response to your ‘going off-grid’ for a while, no problem at all. No need to apologise. Enjoy the time off.
Thanks, I did though being very busy.

Have a good day!
Still small

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #406

Post by Bust Nak »

Still small wrote: 3. The program is designed to “examined all the mutated progeny and selected the one that had most similarity (however slight) to the line from Hamlet.� And then uses this as the basis for the next generation. As each generation progresses, the correctly positioned letters are held or locked in.
That is incorrect. There is no such 'locked in' mechanism in his code. This stood out because I remember reading this exact same complain from the usual cdesign propoentists. You just got this idea from some creationist webpage without verifying it first, didn't you?

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #407

Post by Diagoras »

[Replying to post 401 by Still small]
Any building built upon a ‘foundation of sand’ will always be susceptible to collapse. It’s fine to say, “l believe this [whatever conclusion] to be true� but one can only take it based upon one’s faith in the a priori. Once again, the a priori is not ‘proven fact’.
In other words, “Ah - but how do you know that’s true?� Probably this is becoming a debate better suited to the Philosophy forum rather than here. My take on it is that I’m much more comfortable building on ‘science sand’ than ‘god rock’, as it has the benefit of physically existing.

On ‘TalkOrigins’ and ‘TrueOrigin’

The positive I take from this ‘back and forth’ is that we at least agree that the ‘general reader’ is best served by investigating all claims.
What then, of common descent or macro-evolution , has actually been observed during experimentation?
And what of star and planet formation? Anyone starting from an assumption of a ‘young earth’ has to discount or ignore plenty of other phenomena. Observations that could otherwise be very easily be explained with geological timescales (millions of years), and tested using a variety of reliable indirect experimental methods.

Mass extinctions

Clearly, if there’s only one difference between our a priori, then it must be an absolutely huge one. I’m coming to the conclusion that the gulf between our ‘world-views’ is too wide to address. I’d rather leave it at that than go off on yet another tangent.

Thanks for the links to epigenetics though - I will try and make some time to familiarise myself more.
there was no actual response to my comments regarding Tiktaalik being a concurrent species
Must have missed that, sorry. Try this link, and read the last update at the bottom of the page.

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #408

Post by Still small »

[Replying to post 403 by Bust Nak]

My apologies, you are correct, the claim is that there is no ‘locking in’ mechanism. Though, you are wrong in assuming that my error was due to “some creationist webpage�. My deduction was from retracing each letter though the ‘generations’ in reverse order, noting that once the correct letter appeared, it remained as such. Upon a closer look, I notice that in the 8th generation a correctly positioned ‘a’ changes to an incorrect ‘i’ for a number of generations but that appears to be the only occurrence. Then again, that particular positioning of an “i� may be the deleterious mutation that eliminates that lineage altogether before reaching its goal. This is one of the conditions of mutations which this program ignores. So who knows what the true outcome may have been.
But again, in this instance your are correct.

Have a good day!
Still small

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #409

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 405 by Still small]

What do you think not being selected for in the next round of production is, if not a reflection of an elimination of a whole lineage due to deleterious mutation? The vast majority of the breeding population is eliminated each round.

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #410

Post by Still small »

Bust Nak wrote: [Replying to post 405 by Still small]

What do you think not being selected for in the next round of production is, if not a reflection of an elimination of a whole lineage due to deleterious mutation? The vast majority of the breeding population is eliminated each round.
True but the basis of selection within this program is that it is a closer match to the final sequence, "Me thinks it is a weasel.� and, thereby, being a ‘beneficial’ mutation. But natural selection has no foresight as to a required final outcome. Therefore, in the model, each step, each mutation, needs to be ‘beneficial’ in and of itself to be selected regardless of any future outcome. The change of “a� to “i“ in the 8th generation shows no greater benefit for selection with in that generation than any other letter. It is only with forethought or a plan does any combination have a benefit which is not how natural selection is supposed to work (according to evolutionists). Thus, the “Me thinks it is a weasel.� program is not in any way relevant to biological evolution.

Have a good day!
Still small

Post Reply