[_ Old Earth _] Dr. John Sanford interview

[Barbarian]

Many studies have found that epistasis is widespread, but they have rarely considered beneficial mutations. We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/33.../1193.abstract

Yep. It's called "stabilizing selection." Darwin wrote about it, although he didn't understand the genetic basis for it. What your report says is that improvement in a well-fitted population proceeds at a slower and slower rate. Notice the study also shows that one of five cases of epistasis actually showed a greater than expected increase in fitness. Which is a lot more than Kumura's data say woiuld be necessary to maintain fitness.

Fitness still increases, albeit at a declining rate. It says the opposite of what Sanford is peddling. Didn't you read it?

Genetic deterioration has been a concern for a long time.

But your study indicates it's not a problem. Or have you changed your mind, again?

Here is some reading for you

(Richard Lynn, a psychologist, touted as a genetics expert)

Lynn's research is controversial. He is cited in the book The Bell Curve. He was also one of the 52 scientists who signed "Mainstream Science on Intelligence", an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. He sits on the editorial boards of the journals Intelligence and Personality and Individual Differences. Lynn sits on the boards of the Pioneer Fund, an organization that has been described as racist in nature, and of the Pioneer-supported journal Mankind Quarterly, which has been called a white supremacist journal...His article, "Skin color and intelligence in African Americans," 2002, Population and Environment, concludes that lightness of skin color in African-Americans is positively correlated with IQ, which he claims derives from the higher proportion of Caucasian admixture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn

His claim is easy to refute. Among the "discoveries" of your "eugenicists" was the the Yerkes IQ studies, done on a huge group of army inductees in WWI, showed that whites were "genetically superior" in intelligence to blacks.

Unfortunately, the study also "showed" that northern blacks were "genetically superior" in intelligence to southern whites. They didn't show that in their books, of course.

You could have done worse. One of his fellows cited in The Bell Curve, wrote an amusing bit of research in which he claimed that a man's IQ is inversely proportional to a particular anatomical measurement. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

 

[spartakis]

Many studies have found that epistasis is widespread, but they have rarely considered beneficial mutations. We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/33.../1193.abstract[/B]

Above and below confirms Dr. Sanford statements.
Most findings are a rapid deceleration of the rate of fitness increase.

Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1193.short

Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

A neutral theory predicts multigenic aging and increased concentrations of deleterious mutations on the mitochondrial and Y chromosomes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12208346

Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual’s survival and reproduction – i.e. in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation.


Human race deteriorating says genetics expert
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/hu...enetics-expert

This rapid evolution of the Y chromosome has led to a dramatic loss of genes on the Y chromosome at a rate that, if maintained, eventually could lead to the Y chromosome's complete disappearance.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0716201127.htm

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220.html

You could have done worse. One of his fellows cited in The Bell Curve, wrote an amusing bit of research in which he claimed that a man's IQ is inversely proportional to a particular anatomical measurement. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

I didn't cite it for his research but the first part of it where the paper goes through the history of the concern we are talking about.

(In the middle decades of the nineteenth century a number of biological andsocial scientists believed that the genetic quality of the populations of the Western nations was deteriorating. )
Remember I said this was a concern for a long time.


Dr Sanford pointed out that the genome is in a state of inexorable decay because of mutations. If beneficial mutations generally get in the way of each other, their combined effects cannot stop this process of decay in the genome. Evolution thus has three strikes against it: most mutations are not beneficial, practically all mutations destroy specified complexity, and, now, even ‘beneficial’ mutations work against each other. While mutations may be of limited benefit to a single organism in a limited context (e.g., sickle cell anemia can protect against malaria even though the sickle cell trait is harmful), mutations seem to be no benefit whatsoever for microbes-to-man evolution, whether individually or together.
http://creation.com/antagonistic-epistasis#endRef6

 

[Barbarian]

Re: Dr. John Sanford interview
Many studies have found that epistasis is widespread, but they have rarely considered beneficial mutations. We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/33.../1193.abstract[/B]

Above and below confirms Dr. Sanford statements.

It says that fitness increases, although at a reduced rate, in four out of five cases. In one case, fitness increased faster than expected. Even if fitness is increasing at a decreasing rate, it directly contradicts Sanford's claim that fitness is decreasing.

Sanford's claim where fitness is on the Y axis, and time on the X axis:

A declining rate of increase would show a steep rise, with the curve becoming less and less steep over time. Quite a different thing.

Most findings are a rapid deceleration of the rate of fitness increase.

Yes, which is entirely different than a decrease in fitness.

Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1193.short

Which according to Kimura's data (Kimura's is the work Sanford cited as evidence) is far more than enough to counter any degradation through neutral mutations.

You can cite a good deal of research talking about the effect, and as you just did, remove the part that talks about how the effect is overcome by soft selection, epistasis, and favorable mutations. But as you see, even the papers you cite actually say fitness continues to increase, although at a declining rate.

Which is what Darwin predicted. As any population becomes adapted to an environment, increases in fitness become smaller and smaller. For reasons I'm sure you could figure out.

And you still have the fact that the real world contradicts Sanford's claim. Human performance, both physical and mental, is increasing markedly. Longevity is much greater in most societies today than the "three score and ten" of Biblical times.

(Spartakis endorses bozo who thinks the color of one's skin is an indicator of one's intelligence)

Barbarian chuckles:
You could have done worse. One of his fellows cited in The Bell Curve, wrote an amusing bit of research in which he claimed that a man's IQ is inversely proportional to a particular anatomical measurement. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

I didn't cite it for his research but the first part of it where the paper goes through the history of the concern we are talking about.

He's just a nutcase. He isn't even a geneticist; he's a psychologist who's mixed up in a white supremist group. C'mon. What are you doing with those people?

(In the middle decades of the nineteenth century a number of biological and social scientists believed that the genetic quality of the populations of the Western nations was deteriorating. )

Remember I said this was a concern for a long time.

It was based on the observation that the upper classes tended to have fewer children than the lower classes. And in the conservative thinking of the time, it was assumed that the upper classes were somehow genetically superior.

Ironically, it was Darwinians like Morgan and Punnett, who demonstrated how foolish those assumptions were. Notice it says "a number", not "most."

Dr Sanford pointed out that the genome is in a state of inexorable decay because of mutations.

I notice he wants us to believe it, but both social reality (increasing human performance) and genetic data (even the studies he cited don't support his ideas, as you just learned) say otherwise.

If beneficial mutations generally get in the way of each other, their combined effects cannot stop this process of decay in the genome.

And yet what we see, when we test this in the real world, is an increase in fitness.
Realty trumps anyone's beliefs.

Evolution thus has three strikes against it: most mutations are not beneficial, practically all mutations destroy specified complexity, and, now, even ‘beneficial’ mutations work against each other.

See above. Even the work Sanford cites, says otherwise. No way out for him.

While mutations may be of limited benefit to a single organism in a limited context (e.g., sickle cell anemia can protect against malaria even though the sickle cell trait is harmful),

Most people who have sickle cell trait never know it. Unless you are exposed to low oxygen levels, it doesn't do anything. I had a friend in the AF who had it, and he only found out, when it washed him out of pilot training. Only homozygotes get the disease. And in malarial areas, that was less likely than dying of malaria.

And recently, another mutation has appeared that doesn't even cause a serious problem in homozygotes, but prevents severe malaria.

An improvement over the sickle cell gene. Exactly what Sanford claims can't happen.

 

[spartakis]

What I have shown you in the last cites was epistasis is of no help. And has only been an assumption that it may help the decline of fitness. The decline of the genome is a fact, and what may help is an assumption, and has not been concluded.
Lets take a look at something new to you and already cited work.

New

Although mutation provides the fuel for phenotypic evolution, it also imposes a substantial burden on fitness through the production of predominantly deleterious alleles, a matter of concern from a human-health perspective. Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.abstract

Already cited

Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

A neutral theory predicts multigenic aging and increased concentrations of deleterious mutations on the mitochondrial and Y chromosomes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12208346

Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual’s survival and reproduction – i.e. in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation.


Human race deteriorating says genetics expert
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/hu...enetics-expert

This rapid evolution of the Y chromosome has led to a dramatic loss of genes on the Y chromosome at a rate that, if maintained, eventually could lead to the Y chromosome's complete disappearance.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0716201127.htm

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220.html


You do have assumptions that epistasis can slow this down but what we just looked at with epistasis is very doubtful.

Most agree and know that most mutations are deleterious, and are deteriorating our genome.

Those with naturalistic and materialistic bias will always reject a creator no matter what the evidence

Dr. Scott Tod
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic

This would be a surprise to God fearing scientist like Newton and etc...

The fact is mutations and NS are not a good process for the claim of microbes to men, and your best empirical examples fall very short of this proof.

Sickle cell even in heterozygosity is still a mutant gene, and this makes a pretty good point below.


If you are resistant to malaria, you are more likely to survive to pass on your genes. Nevertheless, it is a defect, not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and having more carriers in the population means that there will be more people suffering from this terrible disease. Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that ‘upward evolution’ is a fact, yet many schoolchildren are taught this as a ‘proof’ of evolution.
http://creation.com/sickle-cell-anemia-does-not-prove-evolution

 

[Barbarian]

What I have shown you in the last cites was epistasis is of no help.

The research cited showed that one of five cases of epistasis actually increased fitness beyond the expected. Which is a lot more than Kimura's data says is necessary to avoid degradation of the genome. (Kimura, remember, is the guy whose research Sanford was touting) And even then, the study only says that epistasis slows the rate if improved fitness. It doesn't make a population less fit.

And has only been an assumption that it may help the decline of fitness.

As you learned, that's false. I showed you evidence to the contrary. No point in denying it.

The decline of the genome is a fact,

I know you want to believe that, but the fact of increasing human performance, including greater intelligence and life span greater than in biblical times refutes that belief.

And, of course, there is all that research data showing that it isn't.

Although mutation provides the fuel for phenotypic evolution, it also imposes a substantial burden on fitness through the production of predominantly deleterious alleles, a matter of concern from a human-health perspective. Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.abstract

This merely says that if humans interfere with natural selection (by helping people with genetic disorders and so on), then fitness should decline. It says exactly the opposite of what you want us to hear.

Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

Here, you quote-mined out the statement that epistasis and soft selection were expected to counter the effect. Turns out that prediction was right. I showed you later research that confirmed the fact. No point in denying it.

And (again) you keep running up against the fact that human fitness is increasing.

You do have assumptions that epistasis can slow this down

The research you cited yourself admits that epistasis at worst only slows down the rate of increase in fitness. And one of five cases cited actually showed epistasis to have improved fitness faster than expected.

Most agree and know that most mutations are deleterious, and are deteriorating our genome.

Turns out most don't do much of anything. And natural selection, as even the research you cited, admits, improves fitness.

Those with naturalistic and materialistic bias will always reject a creator no matter what the evidence

Dr. Scott Tod
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic

You aren't exactly rejecting a creator. You just don't have much confidence in His ability to do things well.

Sickle cell even in heterozygosity is still a mutant gene,

All genes are mutant genes. If you accept the reality of Adam and Eve, they together could have had, at most, four alleles for each gene locus. Yet the human population today has dozens of alleles for most loci. All the rest are mutant genes.

If you are resistant to malaria, you are more likely to survive to pass on your genes. Nevertheless, it is a defect, not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and having more carriers in the population means that there will be more people suffering from this terrible disease.

Good point, except, of course, it's an increase in complexity (any new gene always increases complexity) and it spreads through populations in areas with malaria because the number of people thereby not getting the terrible disease of malaria outnumber the few who get the terrible disease of sickle cell anemia. In fact, the frequency of the allele in each of those populations is precisely that which would match the likelihood of contracting malaria. And now, we see that a new mutant, Hbc, offers protection against severe malaria, but doesn't cause sickle cell disease. Mutation, you know. The problem, is that what's good for the population, may not be good for the individual. But evolution, like gravity, is mindless and uncaring.

Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that ‘upward evolution’ is a fact, yet many schoolchildren are taught this as a ‘proof’ of evolution.

And it's an excellent example. It demonstrates that evolution is not directed by anything but natural selection, and that it can work against individuals while increasing population fitness.

 

[spartakis]

The research cited showed that one of five cases of epistasis actually increased fitness beyond the expected. Which is a lot more than Kimura's data says is necessary to avoid degradation of the genome. (Kimura, remember, is the guy whose research Sanford was touting) And even then, the study only says that epistasis slows the rate if improved fitness. It doesn't make a population less fit.

Some individual mutations displayed synergistic epistasis, but they were a minority, and were not enough to reverse the overall trend. Deleterious mutations at the nucleotide level decrease our fitness every generation at a rate natural selection can not select for.

As you learned, that's false. I showed you evidence to the contrary. No point in denying it.

No you never did I showed evidence pointing to decline. Some individual mutations displayed synergistic epistasis, but they were a minority, and were not enough to reverse the overall trend. I showed you previously the deleterious rate compared to the beneficial, which they said beneficial are rare.

I know you want to believe that, but the fact of increasing human performance, including greater intelligence and life span greater than in biblical times refutes that belief.

I wish it wasn't so.
Your athletic scores don't go for the population, you are talking about people that train to brake records, with more knowledge of training and nutrition this will increase, these people are being paid to train and brake records.
The entire population

we now suffer certain illnesses to a degree never seen in the past — including skyrocketing rates of diabetes and obesity and, surprisingly, ailments such as hay fever.
http://www.livescience.com/3537-humans-sick.html

As for life expectancy.
Life expectancy shot up dramatically on average across the world during the 20th century, increasing from just age 30 or so in 1900 to roughly age 67 now.
These striking changes are due in large part to improvements in nutrition, sanitation and medicine.
http://www.livescience.com/3537-humans-sick.html

Yes in psalms it does talk about our years to be around 70-80, but the generations from Noah's days lived much longer and had a decrease. If you would take away all of our pills, medicine and etc... we would probably be around 40 for the average.

And, of course, there is all that research data showing that it isn't.

Although mutation provides the fuel for phenotypic evolution, it also imposes a substantial burden on fitness through the production of predominantly deleterious alleles, a matter of concern from a human-health perspective. Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.abstract

This merely says that if humans interfere with natural selection (by helping people with genetic disorders and so on), then fitness should decline. It says exactly the opposite of what you want us to hear.

Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

Here, you quote-mined out the statement that epistasis and soft selection were expected to counter the effect. Turns out that prediction was right. I showed you later research that confirmed the fact. No point in denying it.

And (again) you keep running up against the fact that human fitness is increasing.

Only thing I left out was considered, which is an assumption. The research shows declining genome, sorry what else do you think mutations can do.
You keep running into facts that do not help you, declining and changing what they say will not help you.

Although mutation provides the fuel for phenotypic evolution, it also imposes a substantial burden on fitness through the production of predominantly deleterious alleles, a matter of concern from a human-health perspective. Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.abstract

Already cited

Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

A neutral theory predicts multigenic aging and increased concentrations of deleterious mutations on the mitochondrial and Y chromosomes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12208346

Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual’s survival and reproduction – i.e. in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation.


Human race deteriorating says genetics expert
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/hu...enetics-expert

This rapid evolution of the Y chromosome has led to a dramatic loss of genes on the Y chromosome at a rate that, if maintained, eventually could lead to the Y chromosome's complete disappearance.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0716201127.htm

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220.html

Why deny it?

The research you cited yourself admits that epistasis at worst only slows down the rate of increase in fitness. And one of five cases cited actually showed epistasis to have improved fitness faster than expected.

Sorry that is not the case
Some individual mutations displayed synergistic epistasis, but they were a minority, and were not enough to reverse the overall trend.

Turns out most don't do much of anything. And natural selection, as even the research you cited, admits, improves fitness.

Turns out they are deleterious enough to deteriorate the genome over time.

You aren't exactly rejecting a creator. You just don't have much confidence in His ability to do things well.

No I believe what our creator told us, I am talking about those that I stated with-
Those with naturalistic and materialistic bias will always reject a creator no matter what the evidence shows.

Good point, except, of course, it's an increase in complexity (any new gene always increases complexity) and it spreads through populations in areas with malaria because the number of people thereby not getting the terrible disease of malaria outnumber the few who get the terrible disease of sickle cell anemia. In fact, the frequency of the allele in each of those populations is precisely that which would match the likelihood of contracting malaria. And now, we see that a new mutant, Hbc, offers protection against severe malaria, but doesn't cause sickle cell disease. Mutation, you know. The problem, is that what's good for the population, may not be good for the individual. But evolution, like gravity, is mindless and uncaring.

This demonstrates natural selection does not demonstrate that ‘upward evolution’ is a fact, yet many schoolchildren are taught this as a ‘proof’ of evolution.

And it's an excellent example. It demonstrates that evolution is not directed by anything but natural selection, and that it can work against individuals while increasing population fitness.

Exactly and it is blind and can not stop nucleotide deleterious mutations.
And that
deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.
See above

We might as well stop wasting time, it don't matter how much evidence I show you it will not click with you.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The research cited showed that one of five cases of epistasis actually increased fitness beyond the expected. Which is a lot more than Kimura's data says is necessary to avoid degradation of the genome. (Kimura, remember, is the guy whose research Sanford was touting) And even then, the study only says that epistasis slows the rate if improved fitness. It doesn't make a population less fit.

Some individual mutations displayed synergistic epistasis,

They were all cases of epistasis. Didn't you read the paper?

but they were a minority, and were not enough to reverse the overall trend.

The paper documented that the overall trend was increased fitness. It just says that the rate of improvement became slower over time in most cases.

Deleterious mutations at the nucleotide level decrease our fitness every generation at a rate natural selection can not select for.

Not according to the paper you cited. It said that fitness increased, albeit at a slower rate, for most cases of epistasis. But one of five showed an increasing rate, which is much higher than needed according to Kimura's data.

Barbarian chuckles:
As you learned, that's false. I showed you evidence to the contrary. No point in denying it.

No you never did I showed evidence pointing to decline.

A decline in the rate of increasing fitness. Getting better, but more and more slowly. And one case in five went the other way, producing fitness at higher than expected rate.

Some individual mutations displayed synergistic epistasis, but they were a minority, and were not enough to reverse the overall trend.

The overall trend was increased fitness, but at declining rates. The population, according to your paper was getting more fit over time, albeit more and more slowly. And one case in five showed a greater than expected increase.

I showed you previously the deleterious rate compared to the beneficial, which they said beneficial are rare.

The more fit a population is, the less likely it is that a change will improve it. That's what stabilizing selection is about. Stasis, in other words. It's not news. Darwin discussed it.

Barbarian observes:
I know you want to believe that, but the fact of increasing human performance, including greater intelligence and life span greater than in biblical times refutes that belief.

I wish it wasn't so.

But it's a fact.

Your athletic scores don't go for the population, you are talking about people that train to brake records, with more knowledge of training and nutrition this will increase, these people are being paid to train and brake records.

That's how it's always been. And yet the population continues to improve.

we now suffer certain illnesses to a degree never seen in the past — including skyrocketing rates of diabetes and obesity and, surprisingly, ailments such as hay fever.

http://www.livescience.com/3537-humans-sick.html

Bad diets mostly. And maybe, as you mentioned, the fact that humans have interfered with natural selection, by artificially preserving people who would otherwise have died. But we still see fitness increasing in the population. Our longevity exceeds that of Biblical times.

Life expectancy shot up dramatically on average across the world during the 20th century, increasing from just age 30 or so in 1900 to roughly age 67 now. These striking changes are due in large part to improvements in nutrition, sanitation and medicine.

http://www.livescience.com/3537-humans-sick.html

And yet, healthy, well-fed individuals in Biblical times didn't live that long.

Yes in psalms it does talk about our years to be around 70-80,

Seventy. And now it's in the 80s. And you think this is a decline in fitness?

but the generations from Noah's days lived much longer

Not according to the Bible, which says three score and ten.

And, of course, there is all that research data showing that it isn't. We're smarter, stronger, and live longer than previous generations.

Although mutation provides the fuel for phenotypic evolution, it also imposes a substantial burden on fitness through the production of predominantly deleterious alleles, a matter of concern from a human-health perspective. Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.abstract

Barbarian chuckles:
This merely says that if humans interfere with natural selection (by helping people with genetic disorders and so on), then fitness should decline. It says exactly the opposite of what you want us to hear.

Here, you quote-mined out the statement that epistasis and soft selection were expected to counter the effect. Turns out that prediction was right. I showed you later research that confirmed the fact. No point in denying it.

And (again) you keep running up against the fact that human fitness is increasing.

Only thing I left out was considered, which is an assumption. The research shows declining genome

The research you cited said that fitness increases in cases of epistasis, but in most cases, increases at a decliining rate. One if five increases at a greater rate. Didn't you read it?

Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.abstract

It just says since humans have in many ways reduced the effect of natural selection on our population, the effects will eventually be negative, unless we find a way to intervene.

Not surprising. But you still have to deal with the fact that humans are still getting smarter and stronger, and live longer.

Why deny it?

Barbarian chuckles:
The research you cited yourself admits that epistasis at worst only slows down the rate of increase in fitness. And one of five cases cited actually showed epistasis to have improved fitness faster than expected.

Sorry that is not the case

That's exactly what it says. Do you want me to show you again?

Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1193.short

"Diminishing returns" means "improvement at a slower rate."

Turns out they are deleterious enough to deteriorate the genome over time.

See above. The research you cited says the opposite.

Batbarian observes:
You aren't exactly rejecting a creator. You just don't have much confidence in His ability to do things well.

No I believe what our creator told us,

If you did, you'd accept what He says in Genesis.

I am talking about those that I stated with-
Those with naturalistic and materialistic bias will always reject a creator no matter what the evidence shows.

You seem to be arguing with yourself here.

Barbarian observes:
Good point, except, of course, it's an increase in complexity (any new gene always increases complexity) and it spreads through populations in areas with malaria because the number of people thereby not getting the terrible disease of malaria outnumber the few who get the terrible disease of sickle cell anemia. In fact, the frequency of the allele in each of those populations is precisely that which would match the likelihood of contracting malaria. And now, we see that a new mutant, Hbc, offers protection against severe malaria, but doesn't cause sickle cell disease. Mutation, you know. The problem, is that what's good for the population, may not be good for the individual. But evolution, like gravity, is mindless and uncaring.

This demonstrates natural selection does not demonstrate that ‘upward evolution’ is a fact,

All natural selection does is improve fitness in a population. "Upward evolution" is just a creationist idea.

yet many schoolchildren are taught this as a ‘proof’ of evolution.

And it's an excellent example. It demonstrates that evolution is not directed by anything but natural selection, and that it can work against individuals while increasing population fitness.

Exactly and it is blind and can not stop nucleotide deleterious mutations.

According to the reseach Sanford cited, it does. Rock and a hard place.

deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.

It says that if humans interfere with natrural selection, the results will be decreased fitness, unless we can come up with another way. It's true.

We might as well stop wasting time, it don't matter how much evidence I show you it will not click with you.

The problem is you were handed a mass of research "quotes" that turned out to say things you don't want them to say. Sanford's own data don't support his claims.

And as you see, epistasis has been verified to be the answer to very slightly harmful mutations. Even the research you cited says so. Fitness increases, albeit at a declining rate of increase.

There's nothing you can do about it.

 

[spartakis]

Well a couple things, you are the one that denies what God says in Genesis not me. The evidence supports a decline, sorry. The data states These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. And nothing about being increased above expected. But since this seems to be getting nowhere since you believe all this states an upward movement for evolution



we now suffer certain illnesses to a degree never seen in the past — including skyrocketing rates of diabetes and obesity and, surprisingly, ailments such as hay fever.
http://www.livescience.com/3537-humans-sick.html

Life expectancy shot up dramatically on average across the world during the 20th century, increasing from just age 30 or so in 1900 to roughly age 67 now.
These striking changes are due in large part to improvements in nutrition, sanitation and medicine.
http://www.livescience.com/3537-humans-sick.html

Although mutation provides the fuel for phenotypic evolution, it also imposes a substantial burden on fitness through the production of predominantly deleterious alleles, a matter of concern from a human-health perspective. Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.abstract

Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7475094

A neutral theory predicts multigenic aging and increased concentrations of deleterious mutations on the mitochondrial and Y chromosomes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12208346

Under the present model, effectively neutral, but, in fact, very slightly deleterious mutants accumulate continuously in every species. The selective disadvantage of such mutants (in terms of an individual’s survival and reproduction – i.e. in Darwinian fitness) is likely to be of the order of 10-5 or less, but with 104 loci per genome coding for various proteins and each accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation.


Human race deteriorating says genetics expert
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/hu...enetics-expert

This rapid evolution of the Y chromosome has led to a dramatic loss of genes on the Y chromosome at a rate that, if maintained, eventually could lead to the Y chromosome's complete disappearance.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0716201127.htm

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220.html

Since this means nothing to you and all the papers of the professionals in their field stating a downward movement,to make lets go in another direction.

Can you show one known mutation to show an upward movement for your hypothesis of microbes to men to be feasible? You claim we started as a single cell organism to a multicellular to invertebrate sea life to vertebrate sea life to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals to man. Can you show a known mutation to make this feasible. Take your time and come up with your best, a lot of features would need to be added to get from a microbe to a man. I am not saying there are no beneficial mutations, just nothing to make your hypothesis feasible.

 

[Milk-Drops]

we now suffer certain illnesses to a degree never seen in the past — including skyrocketing rates of diabetes and obesity and, surprisingly, ailments such as hay fever.
http://www.livescience.com/3537-humans-sick.html

Oh, this couldn't possibly be because humans have figured out ways to process sugars in such high quantities that it makes it dirt cheap to use in the making of food, then because of this and how we as humans are not meant to eat such vast amounts of sugar and carbs, we develop problems.

Is it also a sign that we are degenerating if we drink large amounts of battery acid and die?

Life expectancy shot up dramatically on average across the world during the 20th century, increasing from just age 30 or so in 1900 to roughly age 67 now.
These striking changes are due in large part to improvements in nutrition, sanitation and medicine.
http://www.livescience.com/3537-humans-sick.html

Yep, thats kind of the point.

Although mutation provides the fuel for phenotypic evolution, it also imposes a substantial burden on fitness through the production of predominantly deleterious alleles, a matter of concern from a human-health perspective. Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.abstract

In short, since we as humans have stepped in and made natural selection less effective in curbing negative mutations, eventually it will cetch up to us and our population will drasticly shrink for some reasons currently unknown. Alright, so what? This still doesn’t state that our Gnome is deteriorating.




I skipped the rest because most are basically saying that any change is a deterioration and yet none show what we are deteriorating from. In short, a lot of huey supported by a lot of what ifs and people trying to align Science with a Bible narrative. Next.

 

[spartakis]

Oh, this couldn't possibly be because humans have figured out ways to process sugars in such high quantities that it makes it dirt cheap to use in the making of food, then because of this and how we as humans are not meant to eat such vast amounts of sugar and carbs, we develop problems.

This was used because someone stated health in the population is increasing because of sports records, see what I am getting at

Yep, thats kind of the point.

We agree

In short, since we as humans have stepped in and made natural selection less effective in curbing negative mutations, eventually it will cetch up to us and our population will drasticly shrink for some reasons currently unknown. Alright, so what? This still doesn’t state that our Gnome is deteriorating.

You mean genome I am assuming. No that would be the other data of mutation rate and etc... all posted by multiple genetic scientist. The fact is natural selection can not select deleterious nucleotide mutation, selection is blind to them.

I skipped the rest because most are basically saying that any change is a deterioration

No a lot is empirical data is showing genetic decrease did you not read it?

and yet none show what we are deteriorating from.

Our current and pass state, like the one article stated why are we not dead 100 times over.

In short, a lot of huey supported by a lot of what ifs

No a lot of empirical data the what if's are the assumptions of what might help the process change. But what if's sound like microbes to man, that's all it is what if's and maybes.

and people trying to align Science with a Bible narrative.

Well Dr. Sanford changed from believing in evolution to creation because of his findings and was amazed at how well they fit with what the Bible stated. Not the other way around.

Next.

 

[Barbarian]

Well a couple things, you are the one that denies what God says in Genesis not me.

I accept all of it as it is. You accept only the parts you like.

The evidence supports a decline, sorry.

And yet you learned that human performance continues to increase. The research you cited shows that the rate of adaptation declines. But it never stops, only continues at a slower rate.

The data states These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. And nothing about being increased above expected.

The report you cited says one of five cases showed a greater than expected increase in adaption, and this is far more than Kimura's data says is needed to maintain fitness. And Sanford claims he is basing his ideas on Kimura's research.

But since this seems to be getting nowhere since you believe all this states an upward movement for evolution

As you learned, "upward" is not part of evolutionary theory. It just points out that mutation and natural selection tend to increase fitness.

Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.abstract

This merely points out that if humans prevent natural selection from working on our population, then fitness will decrease unless something else is done. I've already shown you this fact.

(quote-mined examples, with material deleted)

If you understood what some of it said, things would go better for you.

Can you show one known mutation to show an upward movement for your hypothesis of microbes to men to be feasible?

As you learned, "upward" is a creationist invention. Evolution tends to increase fitness. And of course, the theory says that humans evolved from primates, not microbes.

You claim we started as a single cell organism to a multicellular to invertebrate sea life to vertebrate sea life to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals to man.

Nope. What a silly misunderstanding. Would you be offended if I asked you to spend a little time learning what the theory actually says?

Challenge me on something that the theory actually says.

 

[spartakis]

I accept all of it as it is. You accept only the parts you like.

Sorry you change the parts you don't like to fit your beliefs, I take his words as he tells us he did it.

And yet you learned that human performance continues to increase. The research you cited shows that the rate of adaptation declines. But it never stops, only continues at a slower rate.

As you have learned sports records don't say much for the entire population, and we have went over this, you can see links above, we have more diseases then ever before.
Either way you put it it's a decline.

The report you cited says one of five cases showed a greater than expected increase in adaption, and this is far more than Kimura's data says is needed to maintain fitness. And Sanford claims he is basing his ideas on Kimura's research.

Don't say anything about greater than expected, just opposite but still long term decline, in a case of bacteria.
Sanford uses way more references then Kimura's you should maybe check out his book and go through his references.

As you learned, "upward" is not part of evolutionary theory. It just points out that mutation and natural selection tend to increase fitness.

So bacteria to men is not upward?

Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.abstract

This merely points out that if humans prevent natural selection from working on our population, then fitness will decrease unless something else is done. I've already shown you this fact.

(quote-mined examples, with material deleted)

Natural selection can not work on deleterious nucleotide mutations anyway, to small and that is what is made a point of in the original argument. The rest is just also stating a decline.

If you understood what some of it said, things would go better for you.

I understand it just fine, do you?
-accumulating the mutants at the rate of 10-6 per generation, the rate of loss of fitness per generation may amount of 10-7 per generation.
-we now suffer certain illnesses to a degree never seen in the past — including skyrocketing rates of diabetes and obesity and, surprisingly, ailments such as hay fever.
-Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.
-Human race deteriorating says genetics expert
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/hu...enetics-expert
-Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220.html

All the assumptions of what might happen in 200 generations don't change the facts of a decline.

As you learned, "upward" is a creationist invention. Evolution tends to increase fitness. And of course, the theory says that humans evolved from primates, not microbes.

So microbes to man is not an upward movement, now your declining what your own hypothesis says. Ya where did primates come from in your hypothesis?

Nope. What a silly misunderstanding. Would you be offended if I asked you to spend a little time learning what the theory actually says?

Challenge me on something that the theory actually says.

You declined the challenge. I wonder why? I think we both know.

We both know your hypothesis states we came from microbes over billions of years.
From Dawkins.


The answer in practice is complicated and controversial, all bound up with a vigorous debate over whether evolution is, in general, progressive. I am one of those associated with a limited form of yes answer. My colleague Stephen Jay Gould tends towards a no answer. I don’t think anybody would deny that, by any method of measuring —whether bodily information content, total information capacity of genome, capacity of genome actually used, or true (“Stuffit compressed”) information content of genome —there has been a broad overall trend towards increased information content during the course of human evolution from our remote bacterial ancestors. People might disagree, however, over two important questions: first, whether such a trend is to be found in all, or a majority of evolutionary lineages (for example parasite evolution often shows a trend towards decreasing bodily complexity, because parasites are better off being simple); second, whether, even in lineages where there is a clear overall trend over the very long term, it is bucked by so many reversals and re-reversals in the shorter term as to undermine the very idea of progress. This is not the place to resolve this interesting controversy. There are distinguished biologists with good arguments on both sides.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/publicati...ion-challenge/

 

[Barbarian]

Sorry you change the parts you don't like to fit your beliefs, I take his words as he tells us he did it.

Denial won't do you much good, so long as you cling to your modern revisions.

Barbarian observes:
And yet you learned that human performance continues to increase. The research you cited shows that the rate of adaptation declines. But it never stops, only continues at a slower rate.

As you have learned sports records don't say much for the entire population,

It's a sample from the pool. As the mean increases, so will the outliers. Clearly refutes your notion that the population genome is getting worse. It's getting more fit.

and we have went over this, you can see links above, we have more diseases then ever before.

Show us some evidence. Old ones disappear, and new ones appear. That's how it works. Show us there were fewer diseases in Roman times. With evidence for your numbers.

Either way you put it it's a decline.

Human intelligence and physical capability increases, and you think this is a loss of fitness.

Barbarian observes:
The report you cited says one of five cases showed a greater than expected increase in adaption, and this is far more than Kimura's data says is needed to maintain fitness. And Sanford claims he is basing his ideas on Kimura's research.

Don't say anything about greater than expected, just opposite but still long term decline, in a case of bacteria.

Actually it does. Go back and read it. And the decline is in the rate of increased fitness. That means the population is getting more fit, but at a declining rate. Exactly the opposite of what Sanford said.

Sanford uses way more references then Kimura's you should maybe check out his book and go through his references.

If he cites Kimura's work, then he's stuck with Kimura's data. It says that a favorable mutation every hundred generations is sufficient to overcome the effect of neutral mutations. And as you learned, they come a lot more often than that.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, "upward" is not part of evolutionary theory. It just points out that mutation and natural selection tend to increase fitness.

So bacteria to men is not upward?

Meaningless question in biology.

Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior for deleterious-mutation accumulation leads to the conclusion that a substantial reduction in human fitness can be expected over the next few centuries in industrialized societies unless novel means of genetic intervention are developed.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.abstract

This merely points out that if humans prevent natural selection from working on our population, then fitness will decrease unless something else is done. I've already shown you this fact.

(quote-mined examples, with material deleted)

Natural selection can not work on deleterious nucleotide mutations anyway,

That's not what this research is about. It's about humans preserving those of us with harmful mutations. You've gotten confused, again.

Barbarian chuckles:
If you understood what some of it said, things would go better for you.

I understand it just fine, do you?

Someone's convinced you that a decline in the rate of fitness increase is a decline in fitness. Two different things. And even then, notice that the paper reports one in five such cases shows an increase in the rate of fitness, far more than Kimura's data show to be necessary.

-

we now suffer certain illnesses to a degree never seen in the past

And far less of many others. Take a previous period in history and show us the numbers for the diseases and compare them to modern times. Otherwise you're just waving your hands.

Finally, a consideration of the long-term consequences of current human behavior...

If you say it twice, it still won't change to what you want to say.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, "upward" is a creationist invention. Evolution tends to increase fitness. And of course, the theory says that humans evolved from primates, not microbes.

So microbes to man is not an upward movement

If a population of microbes evolved into humans, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. That's just another creationist fairytale, invented to keep you on the plantation.

now your declining what your own hypothesis says. Ya where did primates come from in your hypothesis?

Evidence shows they evolved from insectivores.

(Barbarian challenged to proved something science doesn't say)

Nope. What a silly misunderstanding. Would you be offended if I asked you to spend a little time learning what the theory actually says?

Challenge me on something that the theory actually says.

You declined the challenge. I wonder why?

C'mon. No one is dumb enough to try to defend the other guy's strawmen. I'm surprised you thought it was a good idea to try that one.

We both know your hypothesis states we came from microbes over billions of years.

Actually, it doesn't. It's more interesting than that.

(Sparticus cites his buddy Dawkins)

Sorry, An atheist, with a rather simplistic view of adaptionism. I can see why you'd like him. But he doesn't say what you wanted him to say, either.

 

[spartakis]

Denial won't do you much good, so long as you cling to your modern revisions.

Like I showed you I don't have revisions, believing the Bible goes back to what Moses taught and even what Jesus taught of Noah and creation. I showed you links and the Hebrew calender speaks for itself. You don't believe the words of Moses then deny that you don't believe them

And yet you learned that human performance continues to increase. The research you cited shows that the rate of adaptation declines. But it never stops, only continues at a slower rate.

As you observed multiple papers stating human genetic decrease, and etc... Even the bacteria in the lab was still overall decrease.

It's a sample from the pool. As the mean increases, so will the outliers. Clearly refutes your notion that the population genome is getting worse. It's getting more fit.

No it is citing people who get paid to train to brake records, with way more knowledge of how to do it then the past.

Show us some evidence. Old ones disappear, and new ones appear. That's how it works. Show us there were fewer diseases in Roman times. With evidence for your numbers.

Well we have a huge increase in medication nutrients and etc... As known with plagues and etc..since them days, so that has to be taken into effect as seen below

Life expectancy shot up dramatically on average across the world during the 20th century, increasing from just age 30 or so in 1900 to roughly age 67 now.
These striking changes are due in large part to improvements in nutrition, sanitation and medicine.
http://www.livescience.com/3537-humans-sick.html

But we can still see that even with the improvements

More yeasts and molds are now recognized to cause more human disease than ever before. This development is not due to a change in the virulence of these fungi, but rather to changes in the human host.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15325061

Its a known we have more heart disease and cancers then before.

Also as I cited before

we now suffer certain illnesses to a degree never seen in the past — including skyrocketing rates of diabetes and obesity and, surprisingly, ailments such as hay fever.
http://www.livescience.com/3537-humans-sick.html

I am not going to look up every disease you will decline any of it because of sports records anyway

Human intelligence and physical capability increases, and you think this is a loss of fitness.

See above and the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Barbarian observes:
The report you cited says one of five cases showed a greater than expected increase in adaption, and this is far more than Kimura's data says is needed to maintain fitness. And Sanford claims he is basing his ideas on Kimura's research.

Shows an overall trend of a decrease.

Actually it does. Go back and read it. And the decline is in the rate of increased fitness. That means the population is getting more fit, but at a declining rate. Exactly the opposite of what Sanford said.

Is it still not a decrease? I think so, even then in is a lab of bacteria. Plenty of papers talking about human genetic decrease, confirming Sanford.
Mutation rates and etc... also confirm this.

If he cites Kimura's work, then he's stuck with Kimura's data. It says that a favorable mutation every hundred generations is sufficient to overcome the effect of neutral mutations. And as you learned, they come a lot more often than that.

No he assumes a substitution could occur every couple hundred generations. This would have to occur over the entire population and huge enough to make up for 200 generations of 100 mutations per generation. Very unlikely. As you have learned mutations that are neutral are still deleterious enough to have an effect of the genome, it is a copying error. I have already shown you most mutations are harmful.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, "upward" is not part of evolutionary theory. It just points out that mutation and natural selection tend to increase fitness.

As you have learned evolution would have to be an upward process.

Someone's convinced you that a decline in the rate of fitness increase is a decline in fitness. Two different things. And even then, notice that the paper reports one in five such cases shows an increase in the rate of fitness, far more than Kimura's data show to be necessary.

Well you are taking the one example of a lab bacteria against the cited papers about human genetic decrease. This has been a concern for a very long time as I showed you. And that paper also cites an overall decrease in lab bacteria.
-

And far less of many others. Take a previous period in history and show us the numbers for the diseases and compare them to modern times. Otherwise you're just waving your hands.

See above

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, "upward" is a creationist invention. Evolution tends to increase fitness. And of course, the theory says that humans evolved from primates, not microbes.

So it must be an increase but not upward, here you go contradicting yourself again. Evolution has to be an upward process sorry. I showed you were evolutionist state we have remote bacteria ancestors, sorry are you now declining this?

If a population of microbes evolved into humans, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. That's just another creationist fairytale, invented to keep you on the plantation.

Evidence shows they evolved from insectivores.

(Barbarian challenged to proved something science doesn't say)

Nope. What a silly misunderstanding. Would you be offended if I asked you to spend a little time learning what the theory actually says?

Challenge me on something that the theory actually says.

C'mon. No one is dumb enough to try to defend the other guy's strawmen. I'm surprised you thought it was a good idea to try that one.

Actually, it doesn't. It's more interesting than that.

Are you forgetting what you believed and stated on a previous thread?
Barbarian

As you learned, we don't have a new genome. Most of the microbe genome is still with us. It's just been repeatedly modified over billions of years.

Reality is microbes to man is only an opinion.

Comes down to evidence. You lose.

(Sparticus cites his buddy Dawkins)

Sorry, An atheist, with a rather simplistic view of adaptionism. I can see why you'd like him. But he doesn't say what you wanted him to say, either.

You have more common beliefs and a bigger buddy than me sorry. Ya I quoted where he states our remote bacteria ancestors. Thats what the hypothesis states.

remember

As you learned, we don't have a new genome. Most of the microbe genome is still with us. It's just been repeatedly modified over billions of years.

Reality is microbes to man is only an opinion.

Comes down to evidence. You lose.

So now you are denying what you once stated. Everybody knows what there hypothesis states, the first life form was a single cell and produced everything that we see.

I ask you to show a known mutation that could make this feasible.

Can you show one known mutation to show an upward movement for your hypothesis of microbes to men to be feasible? You claim we started as a single cell organism to a multicellular to invertebrate sea life to vertebrate sea life to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals to man. Can you show a known mutation to make this feasible. Take your time and come up with your best, a lot of features would need to be added to get from a microbe to a man. I am not saying there are no beneficial mutations, just nothing to make your hypothesis feasible.

Not only are you declining but now you are rejecting your own hypothesis, and stating it did not happen I wonder why

 

[Barbarian]

Like I showed you I don't have revisions, believing the Bible goes back to what Moses taught and even what Jesus taught of Noah and creation.

I'd be open to your demonstation that Jesus or Moses changes an allegory to literal history, if they happen to mention it. What have you got?

Barbarian observes:
And yet you learned that human performance continues to increase. The research you cited shows that the rate of adaptation declines. But it never stops, only continues at a slower rate.

As you observed multiple papers stating human genetic decrease, and etc...

Well, let's take another look then:





Barbarian, regarding the increase in human physical and mental performance:
It's a sample from the pool. As the mean increases, so will the outliers. Clearly refutes your notion that the population genome is getting worse. It's getting more fit.

No

Yes. Higher intelligence and greater physical ability are indicators of increasing fitness.

(Barbarian regarding the assumption that there are more diseases today)
Show us some evidence. Old ones disappear, and new ones appear. That's how it works. Show us there were fewer diseases in Roman times. With evidence for your numbers.

Well we have a huge increase in medication nutrients and etc...

So you have nothing. O.K.

Today, we see that the Biblical average age of three score and ten (70) is exceeded by most human populations. Which means that we've gotten a slight increase in fitness in that regard over the past 5,000 years or so.

I am not going to look up every disease

Someone's done some of it for you. I suggest you read "Rats, Lice, and History" for a brief discussion of the large number of diseases we no longer see in humans. I do agree with you that evolution means we will become susceptible to some new disorders, but there are many that we have evolved almost complete resistance to, and are now unknown other than as historical notes.

Barbarian chuckles:
Human intelligence and physical capability increases, and you think this is a loss of fitness.

See above and the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

It says that increasing intelligence is a sign of loss of fitness? (Barbarian checks) No, it doesn't. It says that it might be an increase in fitness.

Barbarian observes:
The report you cited says one of five cases showed a greater than expected increase in adaption, and this is far more than Kimura's data says is needed to maintain fitness. And Sanford claims he is basing his ideas on Kimura's research.

Shows an overall trend of a decrease.

If you were honest, you'd admit it says a decrease in the rate of adaptation. Fitness increases, but at a declining rate. But this is what Darwin said. Any adaptation, as a population becomes more and more fit, will slow down due to stabilizing selection. But if one in five existing cases of epistasis actually shows increasing rates if adaptation, Kimura's data shows that to be much more than needed to maintain fitness.

Barbarian chuckles:
Actually it does. Go back and read it. And the decline is in the rate of increased fitness. That means the population is getting more fit, but at a declining rate. Exactly the opposite of what Sanford said.

Is it still not a decrease?

The paper says it's an increase in fitness, but a decrease in the rate that fitness is increasing. With one case in five showing an increase in the rate of adaptation. Exactly the opposite of what you want to show us.

If he cites Kimura's work, then he's stuck with Kimura's data. It says that a favorable mutation every hundred generations is sufficient to overcome the effect of neutral mutations. And as you learned, they come a lot more often than that.

No

Yes. As you saw, that's what he wrote. His data show that one favorable mutation every hundred generations would be sufficient to overcome the effects of neutral mutations.

he assumes a substitution could occur every couple hundred generations.

Favorable mutation. And as you learned, it happens much more frequently than that.

his would have to occur over the entire population and huge enough to make up for 200 generations of 100 mutations per generation.

That's not what he wrote. Go back and take a look.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, "upward" is not part of evolutionary theory. It just points out that mutation and natural selection tend to increase fitness.

As you have learned evolution would have to be an upward process.

Nope. It's just change.

Barbarian observes:
Someone's convinced you that a decline in the rate of fitness increase is a decline in fitness. Two different things. And even then, notice that the paper reports one in five such cases shows an increase in the rate of fitness, far more than Kimura's data show to be necessary.

Well you are taking the one example of a lab bacteria against the cited papers about human genetic decrease.

If you thought the evidence was not good for your argument, you shouldn't have cited it. And yes, your paper showing that human behavior, preserving unfavorable mutations, might have an effect over time. But that's what evolutionary theory says. Darwin discussed it in The Descent of Man. You're working against yourself here.

Barbarian on the belief that humans have more diseases now than earlier:
Take a previous period in history and show us the numbers for the diseases and compare them to modern times. Otherwise you're just waving your hands.

See above

"I don't want to support my claim" isn't going to help you here. If you have nothing, then your assumption fails.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, "upward" is a creationist invention. Evolution tends to increase fitness. And of course, the theory says that humans evolved from primates, not microbes.

So it must be an increase but not upward, here you go contradicting yourself again.

Look up "sacculina"; it's highly fit and very successful as a parasite. Tell me if it's evolution is upward or not.

Evolution has to be an upward process sorry.

Tell us about Sacculina and how it's "upward."

I showed you were evolutionist state we have remote bacteria ancestors, sorry are you now declining this?

If a population of microbes evolved into humans, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. That's just another creationist fairytale, invented to keep you on the plantation.

Evidence shows they evolved from insectivores.

(Barbarian challenged to proved something science doesn't say)

Nope. What a silly misunderstanding. Would you be offended if I asked you to spend a little time learning what the theory actually says?

Challenge me on something that the theory actually says.

C'mon. No one is dumb enough to try to defend the other guy's strawmen. I'm surprised you thought it was a good idea to try that one.

Actually, it doesn't. It's more interesting than that.

Are you forgetting what you believed and stated on a previous thread?

Nope. It's just that you don't know enough about science to understand what I'm telling you. I don't know how to make it any simpler.

As you learned, we don't have a new genome. Most of the microbe genome is still with us. It's just been repeatedly modified over billions of years.

Reality is microbes to man is only an opinion.

It's a creationist strawman.

Comes down to evidence. You lose.

(Sparticus cites his buddy Dawkins)
Sorry, An atheist, with a rather simplistic view of adaptionism. I can see why you'd like him. But he doesn't say what you wanted him to say, either.

You have more common beliefs and a bigger buddy than me sorry.

You and he have a common agenda to make God and his creation incompatible. It's a hopeless cause.

I ask you to show a known mutation that could make this feasible.

In order to make eukaryotes out of prokaryotes, something else has to happen. Mitochondria are highly evolved bacteria that live in our cells. They have bacterial DNA, and they reproduce apart from our cells. They also now handle energy transformations in the cell. Without them you could do nothing at all. The term for this is endosymbiosis. And that was the key evolutionary step in the line that led to prokaryotes, including the particular one that led to us.

Can you show one known mutation to show an upward movement for your hypothesis of microbes to men to be feasible?

Yes, I can. Endosymbiosis has been directly observed. Would you like to see it?

You claim we started as a single cell organism to a multicellular to invertebrate sea life to vertebrate sea life to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals to man. Can you show a known mutation to make this feasible.

Sure:
Trends Cell Biol. 1995 Mar;5(3):137-40.
Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae.
Jeon KW.
Source

Dept of Zoology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.
Abstract

The large, free-living amoebae are inherently phagocytic. They capture, ingest and digest microbes within their phagolysosomes, including those that survive in other cells. One exception is an unidentified strain of Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria that spontaneously infected the D strain of Amoeba proteus and came to survive inside them. These bacteria established a stable symbiotic relationship with amoebae that has resulted in phenotypic modulation of the host and mutual dependence for survival.

Directly observed example of the most important step in the evolution of prokaryotes to eukaryotes.

Take your time and come up with your best, a lot of features would need to be added to get from a microbe to a man. I am not saying there are no beneficial mutations, just nothing to make your hypothesis feasible.

Surprise.

Not only are you declining but now you are rejecting your own hypothesis, and stating it did not happen I wonder why

As usual, you got confused about the terminology; it's why you keep running in circles on this issue.

 

[Milk-Drops]

This was used because someone stated health in the population is increasing because of sports records, see what I am getting at

Nope, considering Diabetes and obersity seems to only be a real problem in developed countries.

You mean genome I am assuming.

Yes I made a typo.

No that would be the other data of mutation rate and etc... all posted by multiple genetic scientist.

You don't seem to understand something. Are there results repeatable? Have their findings survived peer review? Answer this please. If the answers are no, then we don't have to go any further.

The fact is natural selection can not select deleterious nucleotide mutation, selection is blind to them.

You are twisting what natural selection does and still don't understand the process. If the nucleotide mutation causes the organism to not be able to survive long enough to have off spring, it dies. Natural selection. I don't seem to understand your point.

No a lot is empirical data is showing genetic decrease did you not read it?

I have asked you repeatedly if you can explain what we are deteriorating from. It seems you don't understand that I know what quote mining is.

Our current and pass state, like the one article stated why are we not dead 100 times over.

To me that was a meaningless statement and does not answer what source material was. I could have rode my bike 100 time in the last year. Did I, no. Does it matter? NO. Its just a guy saying he doesn't understand.

No a lot of empirical data the what if's are the assumptions of what might help the process change. But what if's sound like microbes to man, that's all it is what if's and maybes.

Nope. This is not going to be drug down into your false idea of what the theory of evolution says.

Its simple, there is nothing presented as the perfect genome. Yet some your sources claim we are deteriorating from it. Its my point to ask them to provide the perfect genome. If they can't, why should I believe them?

Well Dr. Sanford changed from believing in evolution to creation because of his findings and was amazed at how well they fit with what the Bible stated. Not the other way around.

Even though he has to misrepresent what the theory of evolution has to say and instead of writing a peer reviewed paper, he wrote a book that he sells to creationists? Yeah, sounds so credible.

 

[spartakis]

Barbarian you left out some facts I posted no surprise. And I don't have no terminology mixed up it seems you are trying to switch it up when you received a challenge you did not want to take. Others can see my last post how you denied something you admitted to on another thread.

Meatball I told you what we are deteriorating from, maybe you should read, you might have to go back a page.

I did not come here to debate if the facts are true, but to discuss the implications. You guys are denying something that has been a concern for a while and is true. Along with the plenty of papers above showing a genetic decrease

This paper was written when we still thought there was only a couple mutations per generation because we assumed most DNA was junk, that has changed


(My concern, however, is not with mutation as a cause of evolution, but rather as a factor in current and future human welfare. Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious.)(The ideas that I am presenting are not new. Some go back to early in the century, but the evidence has been strengthened in recent times.)(The most important properties of gene mutations, for the purposes of this talk, are: First, to repeat, if they have an observable effect they are almost always harmful.)
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full#sec-10

Either something wrong with my computer because of power outages(running slow) or their server, but check his references, there are many. He even refers to a statement of
(Dr. Kondrashov No human geneticist doubts man is degenerating)
http://issuu.com/nitai/docs/mystery_of_genome?mode=window&pageNumber=210

So since no matter how much proof I show you of this you will deny it lets move onto Barbarians challenge.
He was challenged

Can you show one known mutation to show an upward movement for your hypothesis of microbes to men to be feasible? You claim we started as a single cell organism to a multicellular to invertebrate sea life to vertebrate sea life to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals to man. Can you show a known mutation to make this feasible. Take your time and come up with your best, a lot of features would need to be added to get from a microbe to a man. I am not saying there are no beneficial mutations, just nothing to make your hypothesis feasible.

His first response

As you learned, "upward" is not part of evolutionary theory. It just points out that mutation and natural selection tend to increase fitness.

If a population of microbes evolved into humans, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. That's just another creationist fairytale, invented to keep you on the plantation.

Evidence shows they evolved from insectivores.

(Barbarian challenged to proved something science doesn't say)

Nope. What a silly misunderstanding. Would you be offended if I asked you to spend a little time learning what the theory actually says?

Challenge me on something that the theory actually says.

C'mon. No one is dumb enough to try to defend the other guy's strawmen. I'm surprised you thought it was a good idea to try that one.

Actually, it doesn't. It's more interesting than that.

Then I reminded him what he stated in another thread

As you learned, we don't have a new genome. Most of the microbe genome is still with us. It's just been repeatedly modified over billions of years.

Reality is microbes to man is only an opinion.

Comes down to evidence. You lose.

His final response was

Trends Cell Biol. 1995 Mar;5(3):137-40.
Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae.
Jeon KW.
Source

Dept of Zoology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.
Abstract

The large, free-living amoebae are inherently phagocytic. They capture, ingest and digest microbes within their phagolysosomes, including those that survive in other cells. One exception is an unidentified strain of Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria that spontaneously infected the D strain of Amoeba proteus and came to survive inside them. These bacteria established a stable symbiotic relationship with amoebae that has resulted in phenotypic modulation of the host and mutual dependence for survival.

Directly observed example of the most important step in the evolution of prokaryotes to eukaryotes.

Wow I ask for a known mutation example to make microbes to men feasible and you provide endosymbiosis, and claim it proves something.

This does not prove the endosymbiont theory and are you tying to switch the topic to this theory because you don't want to accept the challenge. Are you trying to get the topic off of a mutation? The fact is evolution hypothesis is based on mutations driving it, but you deny to show an example to make this process from microbes to man feasible.
( Barbarian has declined this challenge)

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian you left out some facts I posted no surprise. And I don't have no terminology mixed up

You clearly don't know the difference between Darwin's theory and Lamarck's. That's not arguable. You've repeatedly conflated the two.

it seems you are trying to switch it up when you received a challenge you did not want to take. Others can see my last post how you denied something you admitted to on another thread.

As you learned, that isn't the case. You merely assumed two different things to be the same thing.

I did not come here to debate if the facts are true, but to discuss the implications.

It's one of the tough things to get used to on message boards. You declare something to be a fact, and people will challenge you to show it's a fact. If you can't, that's hard, but you lose.

You guys are denying something that has been a concern for a while and is true.

As you learned, Darwin discussed the issue in The Descent of Man. If humans save people born with harmful mutations, it can over time, degrade the genome. Darwin offered no way out, but this has nothing to do with what goes on in nature, where natural selection is unimpeded.

Along with the plenty of papers above showing a genetic decrease

By now, you've been repeatedly reminded that the paper shows most (about four out of five) cases of epistasis result in a decline in the rate of adaptation. This means that the population is still getting fitter, but at a declining rate. That's what Darwinists mean by "stabilizing selection." But the paper you cited said that one out of five cases showed greater than expected adaption. Which is much more than Kimura's data show to be necessary to overcome the effects of neutral mutations. Sanford cited Kimura's paper, in which he showed that one useful mutation in a hundred generations would be sufficient. Of course, Sanford didn't tell you that part. Guess why.

This paper was written when we still thought there was only a couple mutations per generation because we assumed most DNA was junk

When I was an undergraduate in the 60s, people knew a lot of non-coding DNA (that's what scientists call it) had other functions. You've been taken on that one.

And of course, even back then, geneticists knew that there were many, many mutations every generation. This is why I suggested that you put in a little time to go learn about the subject. As long as you uncritically accept the stuff creationist sites tell you, you'll be continuously embarrassed here.

(My concern, however, is not with mutation as a cause of evolution, but rather as a factor in current and future human welfare. Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious.)

As you learned, that's wrong. The very fact that human performance and intelligence continues to rise indicates that we are getting fitter.

(The ideas that I am presenting are not new. Some go back to early in the century, but the evidence has been strengthened in recent times.)

Wrong there, too. By today's standards, the average IQ a hundred years ago would be subnormal.

(The most important properties of gene mutations, for the purposes of this talk, are: First, to repeat, if they have an observable effect they are almost always harmful.)

That's true. In the absence of natural selection, evolution wouldn't work at all.

As you see, the fact that humans are physically and mentally more fit than in the past, easily refutes the argument that we've been degenerating.

Async asks:
Can you show one known mutation to show an upward movement for your hypothesis of microbes to men to be feasible? You claim we started as a single cell organism to a multicellular to invertebrate sea life to vertebrate sea life to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals to man. Can you show a known mutation to make this feasible. Take your time and come up with your best, a lot of features would need to be added to get from a microbe to a man. I am not saying there are no beneficial mutations, just nothing to make your hypothesis feasible.

Barbarian chuckles:
As you learned, "upward" is not part of evolutionary theory. It just points out that mutation and natural selection tend to increase fitness.

If a population of microbes evolved into humans, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. That's just another creationist fairytale, invented to keep you on the plantation.

Evidence shows they evolved from insectivores.

Challenge me on something that the theory actually says.

Barbarian explains
As you learned, we don't have a new genome. Most of the microbe genome is still with us. It's just been repeatedly modified over billions of years.

Reality is microbes to man is only an opinion.

Barbarian observes:
Comes down to evidence. You lose. It's a creationist fairytale.

Barbarian shows the greatest step in the evolution of eukaryotes has been directly observed:

Trends Cell Biol. 1995 Mar;5(3):137-40.
Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae.
Jeon KW.
Source

Dept of Zoology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.
Abstract

The large, free-living amoebae are inherently phagocytic. They capture, ingest and digest microbes within their phagolysosomes, including those that survive in other cells. One exception is an unidentified strain of Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria that spontaneously infected the D strain of Amoeba proteus and came to survive inside them. These bacteria established a stable symbiotic relationship with amoebae that has resulted in phenotypic modulation of the host and mutual dependence for survival.

Wow I ask for a known mutation example to make microbes to men feasible

As you learned, men evolved from primates. But the biggest step in going from bacteria to eukaryotes was endosymbiosis. As you see, that's an observed fact in evolution. A species of amoeba evolved a new endosymbiotic relationship with bacteria, that is no obligate for both organisms. This is how our mitochondria formed. Would you like me to show you the evidence, again?

This does not prove the endosymbiont theory

It merely shows that it happens. And given the fact that mitochondria have bacterial enzymes, reproduce apart from the cell with their own, bacterial DNA, is conclusive evidence for that step on the evolution of the domain Eukarya.

and are you tying to switch the topic to this theory because you don't want to accept the challenge.

You want me to show a microbe evolving into a man. But as you learned, that's a creationist fairytale. Humans evolved from primates. And eukaryotes evolved from bacteria by endosymbiosis. The evidence, as you learned, is compelling. And we have a directly observed instance of it. No point in denying it.

Are you trying to get the topic off of a mutation?

I imagine it was a bit of a shock to learn that "mutation" means "a change in genome" which would include mDNA.

The fact is evolution hypothesis is based on mutations driving it, but you deny to show an example to make this process from microbes to man feasible.

I see your denial. But as we have directly observed it happening (and yes, it was a gradual change, involving mutations in both the host and the bacterium; read the paper to learn about it) you've hit the wall again.

Take some time out, and learn about this stuff and you won't be surprised so often. BTW, you were going to show us with some evidence, that the number of human disorders is greater than it was in Roman times. When are you going to support that assertion?

 

[spartakis]

You clearly don't know the difference between Darwin's theory and Lamarck's. That's not arguable. You've repeatedly conflated the two.

No I have not, all I have done is asked you explain your beliefs and show a mutation to make your belief feasible. You have stated before you believe men over billions of years came from the first single cell, I reposted where you have said this.

As you learned, that isn't the case. You merely assumed two different things to be the same thing.

No I have not, see above. You can clear up what you believe whenever you want. You can tell us where the first life form came from and how men arose from it, would clear things up a little. From what I have is you believe what I stated above.

It's one of the tough things to get used to on message boards. You declare something to be a fact, and people will challenge you to show it's a fact. If you can't, that's hard, but you lose.

Well when all the papers show the same thing, and all you have are assumptions of sports records which I have explained the difference for it gets pointless to argue.

As you learned, Darwin discussed the issue in The Descent of Man. If humans save people born with harmful mutations, it can over time, degrade the genome. Darwin offered no way out, but this has nothing to do with what goes on in nature, where natural selection is unimpeded.

As you have learned natural selection does work on people with harmful mutation that are harmful enough for it to select out. People with very bad mutations usually die before the reproduce. We are talking about the 100 point mutations per generation that selection does not select for.

By now, you've been repeatedly reminded that the paper shows most (about four out of five) cases of epistasis result in a decline in the rate of adaptation. This means that the population is still getting fitter, but at a declining rate. That's what Darwinists mean by "stabilizing selection." But the paper you cited said that one out of five cases showed greater than expected adaption. Which is much more than Kimura's data show to be necessary to overcome the effects of neutral mutations. Sanford cited Kimura's paper, in which he showed that one useful mutation in a hundred generations would be sufficient. Of course, Sanford didn't tell you that part. Guess why.

Kimura's assumed in a couple hundred generations there would be a substitution mutation, which like I said that would have to be a huge mutation over the complete population to substitute out the 20,000 point mutations that has occurred in that amount of time. That is a huge assumption with no evidence for and very unlikely. The paper you keep citing still indicates the an downward trend in lab bacteria, the beneficial mutation would not have been real beneficial in the wild. And remember we are not talking about lab bacteria but humans and the data has been shown to you, you can decline it all you want it is still there.


In the engineered strain Chou et al. eliminated an essential metabolic pathway and replaced it with another from a different species. All the ‘beneficial’ mutations in the engineered strain were merely compensating for the loss of the native metabolic pathway. The same mutations in the wild type would most likely be harmful.
http://creation.com/antagonistic-epistasis

When I was an undergraduate in the 60s, people knew a lot of non-coding DNA (that's what scientists call it) had other functions. You've been taken on that one.

And of course, even back then, geneticists knew that there were many, many mutations every generation. This is why I suggested that you put in a little time to go learn about the subject. As long as you uncritically accept the stuff creationist sites tell you, you'll be continuously embarrassed here.

Well sorry but all the papers shown to you except the one above was from evolutionist geneticists, seems you have been taken. The paper from Dr. Crow
below is a good example. And they did not know the mutation rate was as high as it is, the paper is from 1995 you should read it you would learn a lot.

continuously embarrassed here, I don't think so. I read plenty of research papers from all over, what I see on creationist sites the only difference is the assumption of the past. Scientist with a bias to naturalism that state if all the evidence pointed to God they would still reject it, have way bigger problems explaining what they want to believe as true. To think dead matter mutated to live biological machines that are very complex and get more complex the more we learn about them is a complete ignorant belief. All this intelligence came out of dead matter, get real.

(My concern, however, is not with mutation as a cause of evolution, but rather as a factor in current and future human welfare. Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious.)

As you learned, that's wrong. The very fact that human performance and intelligence continues to rise indicates that we are getting fitter.

As you have learned that is correct, this is from an geneticist that believes in evolution and all say about the same thing. Your assumptions that it is not because of sports records being broke does not support your beliefs with the staggering evidence against it, I have explained this to you many times. If all you have is people that get paid to train all day to brake records as evidence it would be time to

(The ideas that I am presenting are not new. Some go back to early in the century, but the evidence has been strengthened in recent times.)

Wrong there, too. By today's standards, the average IQ a hundred years ago would be subnormal.

That has been explained if you would read a little.

(The most important properties of gene mutations, for the purposes of this talk, are: First, to repeat, if they have an observable effect they are almost always harmful.)

That's true. In the absence of natural selection, evolution wouldn't work at all.

As you see, the fact that humans are physically and mentally more fit than in the past, easily refutes the argument that we've been degenerating.

Well as you have learned the rate of point mutations selections will not be able to select out. That'ts why geneticist have been worried about degeneration for over a century.

Async asks:
Can you show one known mutation to show an upward movement for your hypothesis of microbes to men to be feasible? You claim we started as a single cell organism to a multicellular to invertebrate sea life to vertebrate sea life to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals to man. Can you show a known mutation to make this feasible. Take your time and come up with your best, a lot of features would need to be added to get from a microbe to a man. I am not saying there are no beneficial mutations, just nothing to make your hypothesis feasible.

Barbarian chuckles:
As you learned, "upward" is not part of evolutionary theory. It just points out that mutation and natural selection tend to increase fitness.

If a population of microbes evolved into humans, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. That's just another creationist fairytale, invented to keep you on the plantation.

Evidence shows they evolved from insectivores.

Challenge me on something that the theory actually says.

Barbarian explains
As you learned, we don't have a new genome. Most of the microbe genome is still with us. It's just been repeatedly modified over billions of years.



Barbarian observes:
Comes down to evidence. You lose. It's a creationist fairytale.

Barbarian shows the greatest step in the evolution of eukaryotes has been directly observed:

Trends Cell Biol. 1995 Mar;5(3):137-40.
Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae.
Jeon KW.
Source

Dept of Zoology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.
Abstract

The large, free-living amoebae are inherently phagocytic. They capture, ingest and digest microbes within their phagolysosomes, including those that survive in other cells. One exception is an unidentified strain of Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria that spontaneously infected the D strain of Amoeba proteus and came to survive inside them. These bacteria established a stable symbiotic relationship with amoebae that has resulted in phenotypic modulation of the host and mutual dependence for survival.



As you learned, men evolved from primates. But the biggest step in going from bacteria to eukaryotes was endosymbiosis. As you see, that's an observed fact in evolution. A species of amoeba evolved a new endosymbiotic relationship with bacteria, that is no obligate for both organisms. This is how our mitochondria formed. Would you like me to show you the evidence, again?



It merely shows that it happens. And given the fact that mitochondria have bacterial enzymes, reproduce apart from the cell with their own, bacterial DNA, is conclusive evidence for that step on the evolution of the domain Eukarya.

Once again you are using assumptions to show how the Mitochondrial was formed. Your paper does not show this happening. Mitochondrial are far from self sufficient. That's another topic that this thread don't need to go off on. Maybe once you answer the other question we can talk about that, you can argue assumptions all day but are a waste of time.

You want me to show a microbe evolving into a man. But as you learned, that's a creationist fairytale. Humans evolved from primates. And eukaryotes evolved from bacteria by endosymbiosis. The evidence, as you learned, is compelling. And we have a directly observed instance of it. No point in denying it.

No it's an evolutionist fairytale. You have stated you believe in this fairytale then you state you don't, you should clear that up. I know you believe Humans came from an ape like common ancestor, but where do all the ancestors lead back to in your hypothesis? Is it the first cell. If so you are calling your belief a fairytale. Even from an ape like creature to human it would need a lot of upward growth so can you not answer the question you have been challenged with.

And you are making assumptions of the mitochondria but calling it a fairytale to believe in the process you defend.

I imagine it was a bit of a shock to learn that "mutation" means "a change in genome" which would include mDNA.

No shock. Just don't believe there is considerable autonomy for mitochondria.

Mitochondria actually have most of their proteins coded by nuclear genes, including their DNA synthesis enzymes. For example, human mitochondria have 83 proteins, but only 13 are coded by mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA). Even those proteins which are coded by mtDNA often have large subunits that are coded by nuclear DNA. These nuclear-coded mitochondrial proteins must be labelled and transferred from the cytoplasm across two membranes. This intricate, hand-in-glove working between mtDNA and nuclear DNA presents a major difficulty for evolutionists. They have yet to propose a reasonable mechanism by which so many genes could be transferred intact (along with appropriate labelling and control mechanisms) to the nucleus.
http://creation.com/mitochondria-created-to-energize-us

I see your denial. But as we have directly observed it happening (and yes, it was a gradual change, involving mutations in both the host and the bacterium; read the paper to learn about it) you've hit the wall again.

No wall, just amazed that you believe that shows something. If that is the best you have to show an upward mutation to make your hypothesis feasible you should really start critically thinking and questioning your hypothesis. You are using an example of Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae to assume that is how the mitochondria was formed. That was your best answer to the challenge?

Take some time out, and learn about this stuff and you won't be surprised so often. BTW, you were going to show us with some evidence, that the number of human disorders is greater than it was in Roman times. When are you going to support that assertion?

There you go assuming again, the only thing I am surprised at is you actually believe the assumptions you are making. Ya I did respond to that, did you not read it?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You clearly don't know the difference between Darwin's theory and Lamarck's. That's not arguable. You've repeatedly conflated the two.

No I have not

You have repeatedly. You don't know what they are.

all I have done is asked you explain your beliefs

I've already shown you. As you learned, I accept all of Scripture. You accept only the parts you like.

and show a mutation to make your belief feasible.

Faith in God does not depend on your acceptance of mutations. How silly.

You have stated before you believe men over billions of years came from the first single cell

Men came from primates. Common descent merely says that all organisms on Earth are related by descent from a common ancestor.

Barbarian chuckles:
As you learned, that isn't the case. You merely assumed two different things to be the same thing.

No I have not

I see your denial, but you have repeatedly conflated the two.

Barbarian reminds Async:
You declare something to be a fact, and people will challenge you to show it's a fact. If you can't, that's hard, but you lose.

Well when all the papers show the same thing

The "Decline" you were so happy to find, was about a declining rate of adaption in most cases of epistasis. That means that a population will become more and more fit, but at a declining rate. Kimura noted that one positive mutation per hundred generations would overcome any negative effect of neutral mutations.

And yes, the fact of increasing human performance in physical ability and intelligence does give lie to the notion that we've degenerated. Even our lifetimes now exceed the Biblical average.

Barbarian, regarding humans interfering with natural selection:
As you learned, Darwin discussed the issue in The Descent of Man. If humans save people born with harmful mutations, it can over time, degrade the genome. Darwin offered no way out, but this has nothing to do with what goes on in nature, where natural selection is unimpeded.

As you have learned natural selection does work on people with harmful mutation that are harmful enough for it to select out.

Humans, by artificially perserving the lives of those with harmful mutations, might eventually cause a degradation of the genome thereby. So far, no sign of that, happening, but it is possible.

People with very bad mutations usually die before the reproduce.

PKU, Juvenile diabetes, and many other genetic defects are now livable, and those with them live normal lives and reproduce. You're just wrong.

We are talking about the 100 point mutations per generation that selection does not select for.

The ones that Kimura said would be compensated for by a single positive mutation in 100 generations? Not a problem. We have many more positive mutations than that.

Barbarian observes:
By now, you've been repeatedly reminded that the paper shows most (about four out of five) cases of epistasis result in a decline in the rate of adaptation. This means that the population is still getting fitter, but at a declining rate. That's what Darwinists mean by "stabilizing selection." Paper you cited said that one out of five cases showed greater than expected adaption. Which is much more than Kimura's data show to be necessary to overcome the effects of neutral mutations. Sanford cited Kimura's paper, in which he showed that one useful mutation in a hundred generations would be sufficient. Of course, Sanford didn't tell you that part.

Kimura's assumed in a couple hundred generations there would be a substitution mutation,

That's what his data showed, yes. Sanford didn't tell you that, because... well, you know.

The same mutations in the wild type would most likely be harmful.

http://creation.com/antagonistic-epistasis

That was Darwin's point. Fitness only applies to the environment. Change the environment, and different rules apply.

Barbarian observes:
When I was an undergraduate in the 60s, people knew a lot of non-coding DNA (that's what scientists call it) had other functions. You've been taken on that one.

And of course, even back then, geneticists knew that there were many, many mutations every generation. This is why I suggested that you put in a little time to go learn about the subject. As long as you uncritically accept the stuff creationist sites tell you, you'll be continuously embarrassed here.

Well sorry

Sorry won't help you. Learning about it, is what you need.

continuously embarrassed here, I don't think so. I read plenty of research papers from all over

No, you read edited snippets from someone else who quotemined what they wanted from research papers.

It's very clear. You were completely blindsided when you learned what Kimura said, for example. Because you saw only what Sanford wanted you to see.

To think dead matter mutated to live biological machines that are very complex and get more complex the more we learn about them is a complete ignorant belief.

God said so. I believe Him. You should too.

Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious.

See, you've confused Darwinism and Lamarckism, yet again.

As you learned, that's wrong. The very fact that human performance and intelligence continues to rise indicates that we are getting fitter.

As you have learned that is correct, this is from an geneticist that believes in evolution and all say about the same thing.

You just learned that you were misled about that. Your "decline" they told you about was a decline in the rate at which organisms become better adapted. And even then, in one of five cases, the adaptation is greater than expected.

Your assumptions that it is not because of sports records being broke does not support your beliefs with the staggering evidence against it

Humans are getting more intelligent every generation. Their physical performance continues to increase. Johnny Weismuller took the gold in almost every olympic swimming event he could enter. His perfomance would not be good enough to make the women's team today. And our age now exceeds the Biblical average. Hard to argue against facts like that.

The ideas that I am presenting are not new.

In fact, Darwin discussed some of them. But notice, the evidence still says you're wrong.

Barbarian observes:
Wrong there, too. By today's standards, the average IQ a hundred years ago would be subnormal.

That has been explained

No, it hasn't. There are various hypotheses about the Flynn Effect, but no one still knows why we are still getting fitter in our mental abilities. The best supported hypothesis at this point is heterosis, "hybrid vigor" as inbreeding in world populations has greatly declined due to weakening of social and racial prejudices, and greater mobility of humans.

(The most important properties of gene mutations, for the purposes of this talk, are: First, to repeat, if they have an observable effect they are almost always harmful.)

That's true. In the absence of natural selection, evolution wouldn't work at all.

As you see, the fact that humans are physically and mentally more fit than in the past, easily refutes the argument that we've been degenerating.

Well as you have learned the rate of point mutations selections will not be able to select out.

That's false, as you learned. Those "harmful observable mutations" are always quickly removed in natural populations.

Async asks:

Can you show one known mutation to show an upward movement for your hypothesis of microbes to men to be feasible? You claim we started as a single cell organism to a multicellular to invertebrate sea life to vertebrate sea life to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals to man. Can you show a known mutation to make this feasible. Take your time and come up with your best, a lot of features would need to be added to get from a microbe to a man. I am not saying there are no beneficial mutations, just nothing to make your hypothesis feasible.

Barbarian chuckles:
As you learned, "upward" is not part of evolutionary theory. It just points out that mutation and natural selection tend to increase fitness.

Challenge me on something that the theory actually says.


Barbarian observes:
Comes down to evidence. You lose. It's a creationist fairytale.
Barbarian shows the greatest step in the evolution of eukaryotes has been directly observed:

Trends Cell Biol. 1995 Mar;5(3):137-40.
Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae.
Jeon KW.
Source

Dept of Zoology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.
Abstract

The large, free-living amoebae are inherently phagocytic. They capture, ingest and digest microbes within their phagolysosomes, including those that survive in other cells. One exception is an unidentified strain of Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria that spontaneously infected the D strain of Amoeba proteus and came to survive inside them. These bacteria established a stable symbiotic relationship with amoebae that has resulted in phenotypic modulation of the host and mutual dependence for survival.

As you learned, men evolved from primates. But the biggest step in going from bacteria to eukaryotes was endosymbiosis. As you see, that's an observed fact in evolution. A species of amoeba evolved a new endosymbiotic relationship with bacteria, that is no obligate for both organisms. This is how our mitochondria formed. Would you like me to show you the evidence, again?

It merely shows that it happens. And given the fact that mitochondria have bacterial enzymes, reproduce apart from the cell with their own, bacterial DNA, is conclusive evidence for that step on the evolution of the domain Eukarya.

Once again you are using assumptions to show how the Mitochondrial was formed.

Evidence:

• mitochondria are the size and shape of bacteria.
• They have bacterial genes, not eukaryote genes.
• They have a circular bacterial chromosome.
• They reproduce on their own, not as part of the cell.
• We have observed this endosymbiosis evolve in another species.

It's pointless to deny it.

Your paper does not show this happening.

As you learned, it does.

Mitochondrial are far from self sufficient.

Like the bacteria that evolved as endosymbionts in that amoeba. They now depend on each other to survive. Like humans and mitochondria.

Surprise.

You want me to show a microbe evolving into a man. But as you learned, that's a creationist fairytale. Humans evolved from primates. And eukaryotes evolved from bacteria by endosymbiosis. The evidence, as you learned, is compelling. And we have a directly observed instance of it. No point in denying it.

No it's an evolutionist fairytale.

As you learned, it's directly observed to happen. No point in denying it.

I know you believe Humans came from an ape like common ancestor, but where do all the ancestors lead back to in your hypothesis?

Remember, because there is evidence confirming it, and because predictions made by it were confirmed, it's a theory. And yes, "theory" is the highest level of confirmation in science.

Is it the first cell. If so you are calling your belief a fairytale.

You're confused again. Common descent doesn't mean humans directly evolved from bacteria.

Even from an ape like creature to human it would need a lot of upward growth

We are a lot taller than chimps, but that doesn't really mean much in evolution.

Barbarian chuckles:
I imagine it was a bit of a shock to learn that "mutation" means "a change in genome" which would include mDNA.

Just don't believe there is considerable autonomy for mitochondria.

For a bacterium, they are as dependent as those bacteria that evolved endosymbiosis with that amoeba. On the other hand, for an organelle, they have an very large amount of autonomy. Their own DNA, which is prokaryotic, not eukaryotic. And they reproduce on their own. Just like the bacteria in that amoeba.

Mitochondria actually have most of their proteins coded by nuclear genes,

And they have in turn, taken over almost all of our energy transforming functions. Which is why both of us are obligate endosymbiotes. Neither we nor our mitochondria now survive on our own.

This intricate, hand-in-glove working between mtDNA and nuclear DNA presents a major difficulty for evolutionists.

Since endosymbiosis has been directly observed to happen, the notion that it can't happen is foolish.

They have yet to propose a reasonable mechanism by which so many genes could be transferred intact (along with appropriate labelling and control mechanisms) to the nucleus.
http://creation.com/mitochondria-created-to-energize-us

That merely assumes that they were transferred. As you learned, most of the bacterial genome is already in our genome. Of course, early on in the endosymbiosis, probably both of us had the genes. And later, because one side or another did it more efficiently, the other lost some (but not all) of the genes by random mutation.

More creationist fairytales.

I see your denial. But as we have directly observed it happening (and yes, it was a gradual change, involving mutations in both the host and the bacterium; read the paper to learn about it) you've hit the wall again.

No wall

Reality is pretty unyeilding.

You are using an example of Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae to assume that is how the mitochondria was formed.

That was the biggest single hurdle to move from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. And as you learned, it's been directly observed. Can you think of a more important single mutation required for common descent? If so, I'll be glad to look for evidence for it.

Barbarian suggests:
Take some time out, and learn about this stuff and you won't be surprised so often. BTW, you were going to show us with some evidence, that the number of human disorders is greater than it was in Roman times. When are you going to support that assertion?

There you go assuming again, the only thing I am surprised at is you actually believe the assumptions you are making. Ya I did respond to that, did you not read it?

Quote me the number and your evidence for the two periods, and we'll go on. You don't have any evidence, do you?