[_ Old Earth _] Another Error Found

[Barbarian]

I've been asking for you to show us how mutations add up. You failed to answer.

Already showed you. Each generation, the genomes of those that survived are the only ones to reproduce. So, as in the case of Hall's bacteria, any slight improvement in each generation tended to survive over those without the improvement. And so on. It's been documented to happen.

Game over.

Yep.

 

[Barbarian]

That would be correct considering evolutionism

But as you learned in my thread comparing the phenomenon of evolution, with the creationist-invented "evolutionism", it doesn't matter. We see evolution going on , but not "evolutionism."

where it adds information to the DNA responsible if the development of the eye is impossible.

I showed you two steps from no eye at all, to a structure that detects light and can roughly dectect the direction. (both of these actually exist in nature) Show us your math that says this information can't occur by mutations.

I'm beginning to suspect that you have no idea what "information" means with regard to genes or biology generally. Let's see how you do:

Take a population with two alleles for a specfic gene locus, A and a. Both are at 50% frequency in the population. Suppose a new mutation x appears in the population and over time increases to the point that all three have a frequency of 0.3333...

What was the information content for that gene locus before and after the mutation?

An answer to the nearest two decimal places would be sufficient. Let us know.

Pending your answer, if you understand this, why are you arguing against it? And if you don't understand it, why are you arguing about something you know nothing about?

 

[Cygnus]

No you have been very obtuse about what you mean and refuse to elaborate on your claims.
I have answered plenty, it is you who refuses to answer questions or explain yourself.
This is exactly what Ieat when I called out your projections. I asked you what mutations you had a problem with, now you are claiming that I state beneficial eye mutations happen all the time. I did not say that at all. I'd like to know. Do you think that the strictest in rhe eye have to randomly generate during gestation? If so I would like to point out that is not what the theory of evolution states at all.

So dar i havent seen anyone foefet that at all.

Is it possible that you might not know what the theory n of evolution is actually anout?

Maybe it's because your arguments suggest that you don't have a handle on advanced population mechanics and genetics which is why you make these percentage arguments and arguments of irreducible complexity?

Either show us how mutations add up or go away.....with all the evolutionism you claim happened it should be an extremely easy task for you to do.

 

[Cygnus]

You keep say "evolutionism adds".

Are you denying that s what your failed theory suggest? For someone who is patting their own back claiming they have "several decades"...your lack of answers is pretty impressive.

 

[Cygnus]

Already showed you. Each generation, the genomes of those that survived are the only ones to reproduce. So, as in the case of Hall's bacteria, any slight improvement in each generation tended to survive over those without the improvement. And so on. It's been documented to happen.



Yep.

Bacteria acts much different in reproduction than the rest of the animal kingdom. I don't really consider it comparing apples to apples.

 

[Cygnus]

I showed you two steps from no eye at all, to a structure that detects light and can roughly dectect the direction. (both of these actually exist in nature) Show us your math that says this information can't occur by mutations.

OK, how many mutations are considered to be beneficial.....ballpark number is all I need...and a reference for your source.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Are you denying that s what your failed theory suggest? For someone who is patting their own back claiming they have "several decades"...your lack of answers is pretty impressive.

Why did you delete the rest of my post and take my question completely out of context?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Either show us how mutations add up or go away.....

For the umteenth time. Ehat do you mean by * mutations add up?"

with all the evolutionism you claim happened it should be an extremely easy task for you to do.

Also for the umpteenth time. I don't believe in evolutionism as you have defined it.

 

[Cygnus]

Already showed you. Each generation, the genomes of those that survived are the only ones to reproduce. So, as in the case of Hall's bacteria, any slight improvement in each generation tended to survive over those without the improvement. And so on. It's been documented to happen.

You're trying to compare a bacteria with a fish sprouting legs so they can walk on land.

 

[Cygnus]

Why did you delete the rest of my post and take my question completely out of context?

Because that's how I saw it and what I wanted to address. If I violated your personal code on net conduct...then I apologize

 

[Cygnus]

For the umteenth time. Ehat do you mean by * mutations add up?"

Well, lets put it this way.....fin to leg evolutionism. How many steps (so-called beneficial mutations) would have been required to enhance the fitness of the evolving fish type...from fin to leg? 1? Just one mutation or more? Or would an umteenth amount of mutations need to "add-up" and produce the morphological changes required to evolve a species with fins into a species with legs.

I hope that explained it to you.

 

[Barbarian]

OK, how many mutations are considered to be beneficial.....

The literature is filled with them, And those are only the ones we've found so far. In a few weeks, Hall's bacteria had about a dozen. But remember, "favorable" only counts in terms of environment. The mutations that made Tibetans resistant to low oxygen pressure would not have added up in most places, because those changes would not have been beneficial. Hall's bacteria would not have had a sequence of mutations that produced the new enzyme system in the absence of a substrate that could be utilized by it. The gene that provides resistance to bubonic plague and HIV would not have evolved if the plague had not been common in Europe for several generations.

Does that mean that we would rarely see favorable mutation in a well-adapted population in a relatively unchanging environment? Yes, that's what Darwin predicted and his prediction was confirmed. Does that mean that we'd see a lot favorable mutations when things change? Yes, that's true.

One way to determine, in any particular situation, what the favorable mutation rate is the Hardy-Weinberg equation. It is a way to show, in the absence of selective pressure, what the distribution of alleles in the next generation will be, given the present distribution.

The Hardy–Weinberg principle, also known as the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, model, theorem, or law, states that allele and genotype frequencies in a population will remain constant from generation to generation in the absence of other evolutionary influences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy–Weinberg_principle

The distribution of two alleles a and b in generation n+1 will be:

A2 + 2Aa+ a2 = 1 Where a is the frequency of allle a and A is the frequency of allele A.

Suppose that a is a new mutation and the next generation, absent any other significant factors, it is significantly more frequent than predicted by Hardy-Weinbert. We then know that it is a favorable mutation for that environment.

Where populations are very well-fitted, the rate of favorable mutations (changes that enhance survival long enough to reproduce) will be relatively low. Where populations are not well-fitted, the rate will be relatively high.

If you think about use of milk, dairy in itself is culturally transmitted. But there’s a gene called the lactase persistence gene, which allows some people to digest milk. Suppose that people who drink milk get enough extra protein that they can survive better. If those same people are learning from somebody to use cows for the purpose of getting milk, any gene which allows you to drink more milk without getting sick is going to have an advantage in the situation where cows are used for milking.


If the cows weren’t there, that gene wouldn’t have any advantage at all. Using the cows for milk production is not part of your genetics; it’s part of your culture. The spread of that culture had the effect of spreading the lactase persistence gene.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-evolution-q-a-with-biologist-marcus-feldman/

By now, you're probably thinking that it's pretty complicated. And it is. A lot of really great mathematicians have turned to evolution, because many problems in evolution are mathematical. G.H. Hardy, as you might know, was a world-class mathematician, not a biologist. Wilhelm Weinberg was a biologist and a physician.

So, your question is like "how will the speed of an airplane change if you pull back on the stick?" The only possible answer, absent specific information as to what the airplane is doing at the time is "it depends." However, Hardy, Reginald Punnett, and a larger number of other mathematically-inclined biologists and biologically-inclined mathematicians have applied mathematics to accurately predict the way allele frequencies change in different conditions.

If you could be a bit more specific, I could give you a better answer.

 

[Barbarian]

Bacteria acts much different in reproduction than the rest of the animal kingdom.

Most of the animal kingdom. But not all. The primary difference is that sexual reproduction allows a much more rapid and efficient spread of favorable alleles, since animals that sexually reproduce get genes from two different parents. Hardy-Weinberg, for example, only applies to sexually reproducing diploid organisms (most of the animals and plants with whom most of us are familiar)

I don't really consider it comparing apples to apples.

You do get a somewhat lower number with asexually-reproducing populations. So roughly 1.5 times as frequent.

 

[Barbarian]

Well, lets put it this way.....fin to leg evolutionism. How many steps (so-called beneficial mutations) would have been required to enhance the fitness of the evolving fish type...from fin to leg? 1?

Could be one. But the first fish with legs was preceded by very many fish with lobed fins and bones in them. Some of those lobed-fin fish had femurs and tibia and fibula and phalanges like tetrapods. The first fish that actually walked, (underwater on the bottom of ponds, because the limbs were not attached strongly enough to the spine to walk on land) had all the bones modern tetrapods have.

Only one line of the lobed-fin fish actually led to walking legs. The process is now happening again, in an entirely different line of fish, the mudskippers which can walk and even climb trees.

The key is that once the selective pressure is there, any mutation that makes the fin better able to move about on land (or trees) will tend to be retained. Each generation, the best-adapted live and they in turn produce a new generation with the same effect.

 

[Cygnus]

Could be one. But the first fish with legs was preceded by very many fish with lobed fins and bones in them. Some of those lobed-fin fish had femurs and tibia and fibula and phalanges like tetrapods. The first fish that actually walked, (underwater on the bottom of ponds, because the limbs were not attached strongly enough to the spine to walk on land) had all the bones modern tetrapods have.

Only one line of the lobed-fin fish actually led to walking legs. The process is now happening again, in an entirely different line of fish, the mudskippers which can walk and even climb trees.

The key is that once the selective pressure is there, any mutation that makes the fin better able to move about on land (or trees) will tend to be retained. Each generation, the best-adapted live and they in turn produce a new generation with the same effect.

I fell I should capitalize the word..SPECULATION.

 

[Cygnus]

Most of the animal kingdom. But not all. The primary difference is that sexual reproduction allows a much more rapid and efficient spread of favorable alleles, since animals that sexually reproduce get genes from two different parents. Hardy-Weinberg, for example, only applies to sexually reproducing diploid organisms (most of the animals and plants with whom most of us are familiar)

All thy have to do is bump into each other to express portions of each others DNA

 

[Cygnus]

The literature is filled with them, And those are only the ones we've found so far. In a few weeks, Hall's bacteria had about a dozen. But remember, "favorable" only counts in terms of environment. The mutations that made Tibetans resistant to low oxygen pressure would not have added up in most places, because those changes would not have been beneficial. Hall's bacteria would not have had a sequence of mutations that produced the new enzyme system in the absence of a substrate that could be utilized by it. The gene that provides resistance to bubonic plague and HIV would not have evolved if the plague had not been common in Europe for several generations.

Does that mean that we would rarely see favorable mutation in a well-adapted population in a relatively unchanging environment? Yes, that's what Darwin predicted and his prediction was confirmed. Does that mean that we'd see a lot favorable mutations when things change? Yes, that's true.

One way to determine, in any particular situation, what the favorable mutation rate is the Hardy-Weinberg equation. It is a way to show, in the absence of selective pressure, what the distribution of alleles in the next generation will be, given the present distribution.

The Hardy–Weinberg principle, also known as the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, model, theorem, or law, states that allele and genotype frequencies in a population will remain constant from generation to generation in the absence of other evolutionary influences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy–Weinberg_principle

The distribution of two alleles a and b in generation n+1 will be:

A2 + 2Aa+ a2 = 1 Where a is the frequency of allle a and A is the frequency of allele A.

Suppose that a is a new mutation and the next generation, absent any other significant factors, it is significantly more frequent than predicted by Hardy-Weinbert. We then know that it is a favorable mutation for that environment.

Where populations are very well-fitted, the rate of favorable mutations (changes that enhance survival long enough to reproduce) will be relatively low. Where populations are not well-fitted, the rate will be relatively high.

If you think about use of milk, dairy in itself is culturally transmitted. But there’s a gene called the lactase persistence gene, which allows some people to digest milk. Suppose that people who drink milk get enough extra protein that they can survive better. If those same people are learning from somebody to use cows for the purpose of getting milk, any gene which allows you to drink more milk without getting sick is going to have an advantage in the situation where cows are used for milking.


If the cows weren’t there, that gene wouldn’t have any advantage at all. Using the cows for milk production is not part of your genetics; it’s part of your culture. The spread of that culture had the effect of spreading the lactase persistence gene.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-evolution-q-a-with-biologist-marcus-feldman/

By now, you're probably thinking that it's pretty complicated. And it is. A lot of really great mathematicians have turned to evolution, because many problems in evolution are mathematical. G.H. Hardy, as you might know, was a world-class mathematician, not a biologist. Wilhelm Weinberg was a biologist and a physician.

So, your question is like "how will the speed of an airplane change if you pull back on the stick?" The only possible answer, absent specific information as to what the airplane is doing at the time is "it depends." However, Hardy, Reginald Punnett, and a larger number of other mathematically-inclined biologists and biologically-inclined mathematicians have applied mathematics to accurately predict the way allele frequencies change in different conditions.

If you could be a bit more specific, I could give you a better answer.

Wow....all I can say is YAWN!

 

[Cygnus]

The key is that once the selective pressure is there, any mutation that makes the fin better able to move about on land (or trees) will tend to be retained.

So, your theory of evolutionism says....

The problem is in having mutations that enhance the fitness of the "leg" occurring over and over again many, many times actually occurring.

That's the part you who believe in evolutionism always leave out. So few so-called beneficial mutation...so very few if any at all...and now the odds of another occurring in the DNA responsible for the "transitional limb". The Theo-Evo sect would have us believing beneficial mutations are over abundant and focuses on the DNA responsible for the "transitional limb"....GTuess what my evolution-friends, not so.

 

[Barbarian]

So, your theory of evolutionism says....

That's directly observed to happen. Natural selection tends to preserve the most fit, and the next generation selects the most fit of those. It's not debatable. And remember, "evolutionism" is what creationists believe. Go check my thread on the differences between the creationist "evolutionism" and evolution.

The problem is in having mutations that enhance the fitness of the "leg" occurring over and over again many, many times actually occurring.

Each slight mutation that makes it more effective is tends to be retained, and natural selection works from that new, higher level the next generation.

That's the part you who believe in evolutionism always leave out.

Remember, creationists believe in "evolutionism." Check my thread again to learn the difference between the creationist doctrine of "evolutionism" and the phenomenon of evolution.

So few so-called beneficial mutation...

As you learned, enough to evolve an irreducibly complex new enzyme system in a few weeks.

and now the odds of another occurring in the DNA responsible for the "transitional limb".

As you just learned, it's happening again, in an entirely different group of fish.

The Theo-Evo sect would have us believing beneficial mutations are over abundant and focuses on the DNA responsible for the "transitional limb"

The evidence shows that. And genetic evidence confirms it. Lungfish, one of the surviving members of the family that gave rise to tetrapods, are more closely related to land animals than they are to other fish.
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7445/pdf/nature12027.pdf

Which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicted. And we know genetic relatedness is a fact, because we can check it on populations of known origin.

 

[Barbarian]

All thy have to do is bump into each other to express portions of each others DNA

No. Conjugation is a fairly complex process and requires specific pili to transfer episomes. Not all bacteria do lateral gene transfer.