[_ Old Earth _] Dr. John Sanford interview

[spartakis]

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.

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

Ya I do, point out where I described the two and mixed them up. You can't. It's pretty simply and basic. I have never comment between the two, only of my disbelief that everything arose from the first single cell from billions of years.

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

No you showed me you pick and chose what you want to believe and then say you believe it all. You don't even believe God created the animals and plant life in the order he said. But then you say you accept it all and I don't

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

It is silly I am not questioning your faith in God, you dodged that thread. I am questioning your faith in your hypothesis of everything arose from the first single cell from billions of years. But considering you have no faith that God could do it how he said he did, and don't believe the books of Moses that Jesus tells you to. It seems you are really dodging the challenge in question.

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

Yes clear up your belief in that. You do believe all organisms arose from the first living cell correct, billions of years ago.

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

Never did.

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.



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.

For one you are not talking to async. Get your facts straight.
For two the only papers that cited what you claim is the ones that were cited for epistasis showing it does not help your assumption. And they were from lab bacteria, not humans and still showed an overall decrease.

What you use to make your assumptions have been explained by your fellow evolutionist. I cited many papers from evolutionist geneticist stating genetic decrease. The Kimura paper you keep bringing up admitted degeneration, but assumed a substitution ( which would have to be huge and occur over the entire population ) could occur in 2000-4000 years from now. This is very unlikely to occur especially over the entire population and be able to substitute out the 20,000 mutations to occur over that time.

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.

Even the healthiest still have way more mutations then their parents.

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

On some cases yes, but that is what I am talking about we have sickness in these generations, if you factor in or nutrient, medicine, and medical knowledge. I have shown you this alone brought the ave life from 30-70. I was talking about mutations along the line of what natural selection could select out. I have already told you about the ones it could not.

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.

False see above

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.

See above, surprised. Do I really need to post all of the papers and more of the genetic decrease in the human population?

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

Because its a huge assumption.

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

Boy you quote mine like crazy, and you complain about people leaving out assumptions, you only use a couple words out a sentence half of the time you quote me. Let me post what I really said.

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.

See the difference

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

How are you going to tell me what I read? I read a lot of science papers posted by people like John Endler and etc....I check every reference giving by everything I read.

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.

How was this clear I was blindsided. In my field it's never good to assume I go by real data and facts. You should stop assuming, it never gets you anywhere good.

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

I believe everything God said, and he didn't say everything formed from the first living cell over billions of years. He said the opposite of everything you believe, creatures even being created in the opposite order. You should believe that to.

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

That was cited by Dr. Crow. Just because you don't like facts you try and get someone's knowledge? You are going after Crow not me on that one. You are trying to ignore the point we are on.

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 you assumptions have been explained by your fellow evolutionist, you like wasting peoples time don't you.

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.

See above you are doing nothing but wasting time.

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.

Se above I have explained this to you over the last couple pages, it's a waste of time now. which I know you want to waste time so you don't want to answer to your challenge.

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

Once again that was cited by an evolutionist name Dr. Crow

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



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.

This has been explained and plenty of explanations

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

Its not the absence, but what natural selection can and can't do.

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.

Many research papers cite the opposite, and agree with genetic decrease.

I told you to check Dr. Sanford references if you needed to remember.

(Dr. Kondrashov No human geneticist doubts man is degenerating)
http://issuu.com/nitai/docs/mystery_...pageNumber=210
He has many in there.

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

That would contradict the statement you made above about diabetes. And empirical data shows different. We are talking about nucleotide deleterious mutations, natural selection is blind to these.

.

 

[spartakis]

continued

Async asks:

He has not commented here for a while, once again your facts are mixed up.

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.



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.

So you have a list of common factors and make an assumption , I could make a list of assumptions about a lot of things but that does not make them right. You could just believe God did it how he said, instead of making up a naturalist assumption.

There are many problems with your assumption, since you are trying to wast time with assumptions, I am not going to spend much time answering, but I will give you some reading material based on problems with your naturalist approach to the mitochondria

The endosymbiont theory implies that there should be considerable autonomy for mitochondria. This is not the case. Mitochondria are far from self-sufficient even in their DNA, which is their most autonomous feature. 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

As you learned, it does.

It shows the mitochondria being formed? No it don't

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

See above, and humans depend on a lot to survive, listing one does not show anything.

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.

The evidence is shameful and not compelling at all, and gives God no glory. God gives us plenty of evidence for his creation and what he stated happened in Genesis to deny it based on assumptions of a naturalist view is not giving God the glory he deserves. And once again you failed at presenting what I asked for. And once again the evidence is very lacking.

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

You stated this after you called it a fairytale. Get your story straight.

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.

Declines to answer.

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

Declines to answer. No but that is a remote ancestor in your hypothesis, no one stated direct.

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

Never said it did. Are you saying we are primative to chimps and no upward process is required? Back to the question you should answer though.

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

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.

See above quit wasting time.

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.


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.



Reality is pretty unyeilding.

Stop wasting time, never asked for assumptions, start a thread about assumption in the evolution hypothesis if you want to explain them. I guess that would be everything in evolution.

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.

Your assumptions do not answer the challenge.

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?

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

Go back and read and quit wasting time. I have answered this and posted many cited papers stating genetic decrease. Since you continue to waste time on this matter, you can always answer the questions and challenges.

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.

Unless you deny everything ca,e from the first living cell, you can always clear that up for us

 

[Barbarian]

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

Ya I do, point out where I described the two and mixed them up.

I descried a process of mutation and natural selection and you called it Lamarckism.

Fact is, you don't know the difference.

Bartbarian chuckles:
Faith in God does not depend on your acceptance of mutations. How silly. I just believe that God it the way He said He did it. You still cling to the "life ex nihilo" story.

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

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.
For one you are not talking to async. Get your facts straight.
For two the only papers that cited what you claim is the ones that were cited for epistasis showing it does not help your assumption. And they were from lab bacteria, not humans and still showed an overall decrease.

What you use to make your assumptions have been explained by your fellow evolutionist. I cited many papers from evolutionist geneticist stating genetic decrease.

I saw some edited snippets, but the first one I checked didn't say what you claimed it did. It actually said the opposite of what you claimed it said.

The Kimura paper you keep bringing up admitted degeneration, but assumed a substitution ( which would have to be huge and occur over the entire population ) could occur in 2000-4000 years from now.

According to his data (the same data used by Sanford) a favorable mutation every 100 generations would be sufficient to overcome any negative effects of neutral mutations. And as you learned, humans have a lot more than that.

Humans, by artificially preserving 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.

Even the healthiest still have way more mutations then their parents.

I'd be open to your argument that the human mutation rate is "way more" than it was a few years ago. Show us.

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

On some cases yes, but that is what I am talking about we have sickness in these generations, if you factor in or nutrient, medicine, and medical knowledge.

You were going to show us that there were fewer diseases a few thousand years ago, than there are now. When are we going to see that? Or have you abandoned that assertion?

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.

False see above

Let's take a look, then...

While about 5 to 10% of Europeans have a mutation that confers what seems to be absolute immunity to HIV, Africans and South Asians seem to lack it. But new mutations have turned up in those populations that do seem to stop the infections cold.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1539443/

The Milano mutation a few generations ago, protects against arteriosclerosis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apolipoprotein_A1

A new mutation in some African populations changes hemoglobin to protect against severe malaria disease, while avoiding the debilitating effects of the sickle cell form:
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/96/7/2358.long

And so on.

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.

See above, surprised.

You shouldn't be. You saw that before. All those "proofs" you thought you had were just snipped out of research that didn't say what you were told they said. Like this example, and like Kimura's research.

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

Because its a huge assumption.

Because the data doesn't say what he wants it to say. So he hid it from you.

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

How are you going to tell me what I read?

Because you get rather peeved when I show you what the paper actually said, and your guys just fed you carefully snipped bits to make it look otherwise.

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.

How was this clear I was blindsided.

You had no idea that Kimura wrote that one positive mutation in a hundred generations would be enough to overcome the effects of neutral mutations.

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

I believe everything God said.

The parts you want to believe.

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

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

That was cited by Dr. Crow.

No. Not unless "Dr. Crow" is a Lamarckist. Natural selection is why favorable mutations are preserved and unfavorable ones are removed.

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 you assumptions have been explained by your fellow evolutionist,

Don't see where. No one with any sense denies those things. They are a matter of record.

Barbarian chuckles:
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.

See above you are doing nothing but wasting time.

It's a fact. Go back and check for yourself. You were fooled by the guys who left out the part about fitness continuing to increase at a decreasing rate.

Barbarian observes:
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.

(denial)

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

No, it hasn't.

Well, let's take a look. Here's a graph of the data, with the average score for recent years set at 100:

Surprise.

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.

This has been explained and plenty of explanations

But of course, all of those that present evidence, involve increased fitness. Exactly the opposite of what you claim.

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.

Many research papers cite the opposite

Reality trumps anyone's reasoning.

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

That would contradict the statement you made above about diabetes.

Human interference can always change things. But that's not what we see in nature.

And empirical data shows different. We are talking about nucleotide deleterious mutations, natural selection is blind to these.

I don't think you know what that term means.

 

[Barbarian]

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.

(declines to do so)

Barbarian observes:
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?

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.

So you have a list of common factors and make an assumption

Evidence. In science, a conclusion based on evidence is called an "inference."

It's how science works. Might seem shaky to you, but it works better at understanding the universe than anything else we can do.

I could make a list of assumptions about a lot of things but that does not make them right.

Comes down to evidence. Science has it. You don't.

You could just believe God did it how he said, instead of making up a naturalist assumption.

The only difference between us, is I'm willing to let Him do it His way.

The endosymbiont theory implies that there should be considerable autonomy for mitochondria.

They have their own DNA, which is circular, like other bacterial DNA, and they have bacterial genes. They reproduce on their own, like any other bacteria. But they have evolved to the point that they (and we) now cannot live apart. Just like those bacteria that evolved endosymbiosis with that amoeba. Same thing.

This is not the case.

Demonstrably, it is the case. You might as well claim we have lost our autonomy, since we can't live without them, either. Your creationist website crashes against the wall of reality. The same thing was directly observed to evolve. See above.

Surprise.

Barbarian chuckles:
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.

The evidence is shameful and not compelling at all, and gives God no glory.

It means that God is greater and more competent than creationists are willing to let Him be.

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

You stated this after you called it a fairytale.

I called your "adjustment" of it a fairytale. It is.

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. Common descent is a fact, but that doesn't mean microbes changed into men. If that happened, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. Do you understand the difference?

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

Declines to answer. No but that is a remote ancestor in your hypothesis, no one stated direct.

Common descent is a fact. Microbes turning into men, that's a cresationist fairy tale.

Barbarian on "upward evolution":
We are a lot taller than chimps, but that doesn't really mean much in evolution.

Never said it did. Are you saying we are primative to chimps

We have a common ancestor. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

and no upward process is required?

"Upward" has no meaning in biology. They are as evolved as we are, in a different direction.

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

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.

See above

That's what it says.

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.

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.

We share the same genes. For example, the Krebs Cycle, which mitochondria do for us, is the same in all organisms. No transfer needed. Just one member of the symbiosis taking over part of the work.

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.

Barbarian observes:
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.

(Declines to answer)

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?

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

Go back and read and quit wasting time. I have answered this

No, you haven't. You made an assertion, and I asked you to support it with some evidence. And you're running away from it.

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" has no meaning in biology in that context. But certainly the mutations that produced endosymbiosis of Eukaryotic cells was a huge step toward us. And as you learned, that endosymbiosis happened again, and we directly observed 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.

You think that's what evolutionary theory says? No wonder you're confused. Please go learn about it. But I just showed you the most significant step in the evolution of eukaryotes. What else would you like to see?

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.

As you learned, men evolved from primates. Would you like to see an important mutation that made that possible?

I am not saying there are no beneficial mutations, just nothing to make your hypothesis feasible.

As you just learned, endosymbiosis made the evolution of eukaryotes possible. Do you want to see an important mutation in the evolution of humans from other primates?

I'm thinking that no matter how many mutations I show you, you'll still be in denial. But let's try again. Do you want to see one of the mutations in the evolution of humans?

 

[spartakis]

Man you messed up the quote option on your last post and quote mined like crazy. So let me make this brief tired of wasting time.
First

I descried a process of mutation and natural selection and you called it Lamarckism.

Fact is, you don't know the difference.

That is not a fact and you lied. I never stated anything was lamarckism.

Second your handful of beneficial mutations are still broken genes, and create other problems. Let me see give up my liver or HIV not a benefit on either decision.

CCR5-(delta)32 mutation is strongly associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis
http://www.nature.com/gene/journal/v5/n6/full/6364113a.html

The other two was already addressed.
They are nothing to be proud about. Are these you answer to your challenge? If so I see why you have been dodging.

Third I will post my findings again since you have problems reading them.

Mutation rate,

The results are in good agreement with indirect estimates, obtained by comparison of orthologous human and chimpanzee pseudogenes. The average direct estimate of the combined rate of all mutations is 1.8x10(-8) per nucleotide per generation, and the coefficient of variation of this rate across the 20 loci is 0.53. Single nucleotide substitutions are approximately 25 times more common than all other mutations, deletions are approximately three times more common than insertions, complex mutations are very rare, and CpG context increases substitution rates by an order of magnitude.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12497628


Dr Crow
(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

Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate4, indicating that the effects of deleterious mutations may have combined synergistically.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6717/abs/397344a0.html

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

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


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. Whether such a small rate of deterioration in fitness constitutes a threat to the survival and welfare of the species (not to the individual) is a moot point, but this can easily be taken care of by adaptive gene substitutions that must occur from time to time, say once every few hundred generations.

The bold above is an assumption and addressed below
The Kimura paper you keep bringing up admitted degeneration, but assumed a substitution ( which would have to be huge and occur over the entire population ) could occur in 2000-4000 years from now. This is very unlikely to occur especially over the entire population and be able to substitute out the 20,000 mutations to occur over that time.

That is all talking about humans lets look else where

Metapopulation extinction caused by mutation accumulation
However, in sufficiently small isolated populations, mildly deleterious mutations may be a potent extinction force, because individually they are nearly invisible to natural selection, although causing an appreciable cumulative reduction in population viability (1, 5, 7–11).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC30242/

lthough it is widely acknowledged that the gradual accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations is an
important source of extinction for asexual populations, it is generally assumed that this process is of little relevance
to sexual species. Here we present results, based on computer simulations and supported by analytical approximations,
that indicate that mutation accumulation in small, random-mating monoecious populations can lead to mean extinction
times less than a few hundred to a few thousand generations.
http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch70.pdf

Do you really not see the degrading mutations do? Are you going to state the papers say we are increasing.

If you take a set of 30 encyclopedias on the internet and insert a program to swap out letters, delete some, double some and this continues what do you think the encyclopedias will eventually have for information?

Mutations are happening at a rate selection can not keep up and is blind to most of them.


As to you believing what God said lets take a look.

Genesis/ Evolution
Birds before insects/ Insects millions of years before birds
Bird and fish created simultaneously/ Fish millions of years before birds
vegetation before the sun/ Sun before any life
God made man directly from dust/ Man evolved from ape like creature
Women from mans side/ Evolved simultaneously
Ocean before land/ land before ocean
light before suns and stars/ opposite order
whales before creeping things/ opposite order
death came from sin/ Man came from millions of years of death and suffering.

Could go on and on, but you should get the point. Evolution does not fit into Gods word. Sorry to disappoint you.

Your assumption on how the mitochondria was formed is only that an assumption. Once again similarities in organism show a common creator. God created it like he said he did why can't you believe him?

However, the problem with this theory is that it is still not known how each organism's DNA could be incorporated into one single genome to constitute them as a single species. Although such symbiosis is theorized to have occurred (e.g., mitochondria and chloroplasts in animal and plant cells – endosymbiosis), it has happened only extremely rarely and, even then, the genomes of the endosymbionts have retained an element of distinction, separately replicating their DNA during mitosis of the host species. For instance, the two or three symbiotic organisms forming the composite lichen, while dependent on each other for survival, have to separately reproduce and then re-form to create one individual organism once more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellular_organism

Still waiting on you to state exactly what you believe as in everything coming from the first single cell. And please waiting on your known mutation that would show it possible for your hypothesis that everything came from the first single cell. Not an assumption. You stated this in another thread but now seem to deny it.

 

[Barbarian]

I descried a process of mutation and natural selection and you called it Lamarckism.

Fact is, you don't know the difference.

That is not a fact and you lied. I never stated anything was lamarckism.

Did I confuse you with someone else? I don't think so. But I'll look.

Second your handful of beneficial mutations are still broken genes,

Perhaps you don't know what "broken gene" means. It means a gene that no longer codes for anything. As you learned, all those beneficial mutations do something that increases fitness.

I can show you many more, if you want.

and create other problems. Let me see give up my liver or HIV not a benefit on either decision.

The mutation that confers immunity to HIV in many people of Eurasian descent, has no other effect, except perhaps some immunity to Bubonic Plague.

CCR5-32 mutation is strongly associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis

http://www.nature.com/gene/journal/v.../6364113a.html

That's not what it said. It says the CCR5-Delta32 gene does that. CCR5-32 does not.

They are nothing to be proud about.

Just useful mutations. That's how it works. As you learned, another recent mutation (Hg-c) provides protection from severe malaria, but doesn't cause sickle-cell disease. And the Milano protein which recently evolved from a single mutation a few generations ago, provides immunity to arteriosclerosis.

And so on. There are a lot of such mutations in humans.

The results are in good agreement with indirect estimates, obtained by comparison of orthologous human and chimpanzee pseudogenes. The average direct estimate of the combined rate of all mutations is 1.8x10(-8) per nucleotide per generation, and the coefficient of variation of this rate across the 20 loci is 0.53. Single nucleotide substitutions are approximately 25 times more common than all other mutations, deletions are approximately three times more common than insertions, complex mutations are very rare, and CpG context increases substitution rates by an order of magnitude.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12497628

Just so I know what you think this demonstrates, how about telling me in your own words, what you think it says?

(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.)

See, this confuses Darwinism with Lamarckism, again. Darwinism is about natural selection. This is a problem only if Lamarckism were true. It does not matter if harmful mutations are more common than beneficial ones. Natural selection tends to remove the harmful ones and preserve the good ones.

You cite Crow, but he writes:
Until recent times, the size of the human population grew at an extremely slow rate. With the population largely density regulated, something like quasi-truncation selection seems likely. There was a high reproduction rate with a death rate such that only about two children per couple survive to reproduce. Despite the largely random nature of accidental and environmental deaths, those individuals with the smallest number of mutations enjoyed a greater chance of being among the survivors and quasi-truncation selection could operate.
Previous SectionNext Section
The Current Human Population

However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world. In the wealthy nations, natural selection for differential mortality is greatly reduced. A newborn infant now has a large probability of surviving past the reproducing years. There are fertility differences, to be sure, but they are clearly not distributed in such a way as to eliminate mutations efficiently. Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced.
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full

He's saying that it's not surprising that fitness increased in the past because selection was more strict. He's concerned that more recently, humans have blunted natural selection, which is a real concern.

Kimura cites his data:
Whether such a small rate of deterioration in fitness constitutes a threat to the survival and welfare of the species (not to the individual) is a moot point, but this can easily be taken care of by adaptive gene substitutions that must occur from time to time, say once every few hundred generations.

The Kimura paper you keep bringing up

Sanford brought it up. He just didn't tell you Kimura's actual conclusions.

admitted degeneration, but assumed a substitution ( which would have to be huge and occur over the entire population

One mutation doesn't seem "huge." And fixation would be far more likely for a positive mutation than for neutral ones. Do you see why this is so?

However, in sufficiently small isolated populations, mildly deleterious mutations may be a potent extinction force, because individually they are nearly invisible to natural selection, although causing an appreciable cumulative reduction in population viability (1, 5, 7–11).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC30242/

Probably so. After all, almost all the species once living are now extinct. If not for evolution, the planet would be empty.

Although it is widely acknowledged that the gradual accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations is an important source of extinction for asexual populations, it is generally assumed that this process is of little relevance
to sexual species. Here we present results, based on computer simulations and supported by analytical approximations, that indicate that mutation accumulation in small, random-mating monoecious populations can lead to mean extinction times less than a few hundred to a few thousand generations.

http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch70.pdf

Cheetahs are like that, for example. It's why there is a minimum number of organisms necessary in a population for it to survive. Cheetahs have fallen below that number, and we don't yet know how to counter that effect.

Do you really not see the degrading mutations do? Are you going to state the papers say we are increasing.

I know it's frustrating, but as you see, you've tried to read entirely too much into these papers. They don't say what you want them to. In the case of Kimura's paper, Sanford based all of his hopes on part of it, and then pretended the rest didn't exist.

If you take a set of 30 encyclopedias on the internet and insert a program to swap out letters, delete some, double some and this continues what do you think the encyclopedias will eventually have for information?

See, you're confusing Lamarckism and Darwinism, again. Think "natural selecdtion." Would you like me to show you how natural selection works for an encyclopedia?

Mutations are happening at a rate selection can not keep up and is blind to most of them.

I know you want to believe that, but even the work Sanford cited to prove that to you, actually says otherwise.

As to you believing what God said lets take a look.

Genesis/ Evolution
Birds before insects/ Insects millions of years before birds
Bird and fish created simultaneously/ Fish millions of years before birds
vegetation before the sun/ Sun before any life
God made man directly from dust/ Man evolved from ape like creature
Women from mans side/ Evolved simultaneously
Ocean before land/ land before ocean
light before suns and stars/ opposite order
whales before creeping things/ opposite order
death came from sin/ Man came from millions of years of death and suffering.

Here, you assumed God was presenting a literal history. But that's not what Genesis I is meant to be. As St. Augustine noted, it is a way of presenting the different aspects of God's creation in an understandable way. This was the most common interpretation of Genesis among the ancient Christians, and remains so today.

You've accepted the modern revision of the Seventh-Day Adventists as orthodoxy. And it's never been that way.

And of course, the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of creationism is directly contradicted by God's word in Scripture.

Your assumption on how the mitochondria was formed is only that an assumption.

A conclusion based on evidence. As you learned, the evidence clearly shows that they formed by endosymbiosis. Would you like me to remind you of all the evidence for that? We even have a modern example that was directly observed.

Once again similarities in organism show a common creator.

In the sense that it demonstrates a God great enough to create a universe in which common descent can happen. God created it like he said he did why can't you believe him?

However, the problem with this theory is that it is still not known how each organism's DNA could be incorporated into one single genome to constitute them as a single species.

Mutation and natural selection. As you learned, speciation involves modifying a genome already present, not making an entirely new one.

Although such symbiosis is theorized to have occurred (e.g., mitochondria and chloroplasts in animal and plant cells – endosymbiosis)

As you learned, it's happened again, and we happened to directly observe it.

it has happened only extremely rarely

Lucky us, um? More likely, it happens frequently and we only occasionally happen to be watching.

and, even then, the genomes of the endosymbionts have retained an element of distinction, separately replicating their DNA during mitosis of the host species. For instance, the two or three symbiotic organisms forming the composite lichen, while dependent on each other for survival, have to separately reproduce and then re-form to create one individual organism once more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellular_organism

Still waiting on you to state exactly what you believe as in everything coming from the first single cell.

Common descent. That's what the evidence shows.

And please waiting on your known mutation that would show it possible for your hypothesis that everything came from the first single cell.

As you learned, there have been many, many muations in common descent. I just showed you one of the most important of them. Not only the evidence for it, but the fact that the same mutation has been directly observed recently.

Isn't it time you made your peace with reality?

 

[cupid dave]

As you learned, there have been many, many muations in common descent. I just showed you one of the most important of them. Not only the evidence for it, but the fact that the same mutation has been directly observed recently.

Isn't it time you made your peace with reality?

And you, yourself... are you at peace with scripture and the common descent of the 22 "kinds" of humanoids that lead to the three racial stocks we know were differentiated futher into the present seven genetic types of race???

 

[Barbarian]

And you, yourself... are you at peace with scripture and the common descent of the 22 "kinds" of humanoids that lead to the three racial stocks we know were differentiated futher into the present seven genetic types of race???

There are no seven genetic types of race. The Human Genome Project shows that there are no biological human races.

 

[Adam]

There are no seven genetic types of race. The Human Genome Project shows that there are no biological human races.

Nor are there racial stocks or 22 "kinds" of humanoids.

Neither does the bible make such claims.

 

[spartakis]

Fact is, you don't know the difference.



Did I confuse you with someone else? I don't think so. But I'll look.

There was a couple times you did call me someone else. I am really thinking you have lost it.

Perhaps you don't know what "broken gene" means. It means a gene that no longer codes for anything. As you learned, all those beneficial mutations do something that increases fitness.

I can show you many more, if you want.



The mutation that confers immunity to HIV in many people of Eurasian descent, has no other effect, except perhaps some immunity to Bubonic Plague.


http://www.nature.com/gene/journal/v.../6364113a.html

That's not what it said. It says the CCR5-Delta32 gene does that. CCR5-32 does not.

A few individuals carry a mutation known as CCR5 delta 32 in the CCR5 gene, protecting them against these strains of HIV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

CCR5-(delta)32 mutation is strongly associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis
http://www.nature.com/gene/journal/v5/n6/full/6364113a.html

Glad you agree pick HIV or Liver.

Just useful mutations. That's how it works. As you learned, another recent mutation (Hg-c) provides protection from severe malaria, but doesn't cause sickle-cell disease. And the Milano protein which recently evolved from a single mutation a few generations ago, provides immunity to arteriosclerosis.

And so on. There are a lot of such mutations in humans.

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

We have already addressed this one. You are right there are a lot of mutations in humans. But none that would make microbes to man feasible.

See, this confuses Darwinism with Lamarckism, again. Darwinism is about natural selection. This is a problem only if Lamarckism were true. It does not matter if harmful mutations are more common than beneficial ones. Natural selection tends to remove the harmful ones and preserve the good ones.

Not at the rate of 100+ deleterious nucleotide mutations per generation. This has been stated. Natural selection cannot select all them out.

You cite Crow, but he writes:
Until recent times, the size of the human population grew at an extremely slow rate. With the population largely density regulated, something like quasi-truncation selection seems likely. There was a high reproduction rate with a death rate such that only about two children per couple survive to reproduce. Despite the largely random nature of accidental and environmental deaths, those individuals with the smallest number of mutations enjoyed a greater chance of being among the survivors and quasi-truncation selection could operate.
Previous SectionNext Section
The Current Human Population

However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world. In the wealthy nations, natural selection for differential mortality is greatly reduced. A newborn infant now has a large probability of surviving past the reproducing years. There are fertility differences, to be sure, but they are clearly not distributed in such a way as to eliminate mutations efficiently. Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced.
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full

He's saying that it's not surprising that fitness increased in the past because selection was more strict. He's concerned that more recently, humans have blunted natural selection, which is a real concern.

He is talking about bad mutations that will kill an infant not the slightly deleterious ones that selection will not get.

He states a lot like below

It seems clear that for the past few centuries harmful mutations have been accumulating. Why don’t we notice this? If we are like Drosophila, the decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1 or 2% per generation. This is more than compensated for by much more rapid environmental improvements, which are keeping well ahead of any decreased efficiency of selection. How long can we keep this up? Perhaps for a long time, but only if there remains a social order that permits steady environmental improvements. If war or famine force our descendants to return to a stone-age life they will have to contend with all the problems that their stone-age ancestors had plus mutations that have accumulated in the meantime.

I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb, but it has a much longer fuse. We can expect molecular techniques to increase greatly the chance of early detection of mutations with large effects. But there is less reason for optimism about the ability to deal with the much more numerous mutations with very mild effects. But this is a problem with a long time scale; the characteristic time is some 50–100 generations, which cautions us against advocating any precipitate action. We can take time to learn more.
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full#sec-10

And he had a lower mutation rate considered at the time of this article.

Kimura cites his data:
Whether such a small rate of deterioration in fitness constitutes a threat to the survival and welfare of the species (not to the individual) is a moot point, but this can easily be taken care of by adaptive gene substitutions that must occur from time to time, say once every few hundred generations.

The Kimura paper you keep bringing up admitted degeneration, but assumed a substitution ( which would have to be huge and occur over the entire population ) could occur in 2000-4000 years from now. This is very unlikely to occur especially over the entire population and be able to substitute out the 20,000 mutations to occur over that time.

Sanford brought it up. He just didn't tell you Kimura's actual conclusions.

You mean his assumptions.

Here, you assumed God was presenting a literal history. But that's not what Genesis I is meant to be. As St. Augustine noted, it is a way of presenting the different aspects of God's creation in an understandable way. This was the most common interpretation of Genesis among the ancient Christians, and remains so today.

No ancient Christians and even scientist believed in God's creation, as Genesis states, it's just like the rest of Genesis is ment for historical. You have been fooled. If God wanted it to state evolution he would have stated something simple like this. In the beginning God created the first organism and after a very long time adam and eve developed as beast of the earth. Something of that nature. How can you read Genesis and get God ment for it to mean evolution. Could God not explain evolution, could he not even get the days in the correct order in what they evolved in? I don't think so. Theistic evolution is a cop out to a materialistic view.

Augustine did not believe in an old earth or evolution, he gives you no support.

You've accepted the modern revision of the Seventh-Day Adventists as orthodoxy. And it's never been that way.

And of course, the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of creationism is directly contradicted by God's word in Scripture.

I accepted the way of how it has always been sorry to brake it to you, you accepted a cop-out.
Of course were many heresies even in the early Church. Thats what we are to preach against.

The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC.[10] The Hebrew Calendar has traditionally since the 4th century AD by Hillel II dated the creation to 3761 BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

I have already showed you much more then this.

A conclusion based on evidence. As you learned, the evidence clearly shows that they formed by endosymbiosis. Would you like me to remind you of all the evidence for that? We even have a modern example that was directly observed.

However, the problem with this theory is that it is still not known how each organism's DNA could be incorporated into one single genome to constitute them as a single species. Although such symbiosis is theorized to have occurred (e.g., mitochondria and chloroplasts in animal and plant cells – endosymbiosis), it has happened only extremely rarely and, even then, the genomes of the endosymbionts have retained an element of distinction, separately replicating their DNA during mitosis of the host species. For instance, the two or three symbiotic organisms forming the composite lichen, while dependent on each other for survival, have to separately reproduce and then re-form to create one individual organism once more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellular_organism

I never asked for your assumptions.

In the sense that it demonstrates a God great enough to create a universe in which common descent can happen.

You argue credit to a materialist view and give darwin more credit then God.
You don't believe God can do it like he said he did.

God created it like he said he did why can't you believe him?

You are the one that does not believe him, get your contradictions straight.

Mutation and natural selection. As you learned, speciation involves modifying a genome already present, not making an entirely new one.

You have about what 500k DNA 'letters' stored in the simplest self-reproducing organism, and around 3 billion in each human cell nucleus. That's a great deal more and many new features. That mutations and Natural selection can not show anything close to make your microbes to man feasible.

Common descent. That's what the evidence shows.

No the evidence shows common creation, sum up homologies, homoplasy, analogy = common creator.

As you learned, there have been many, many muations in common descent. I just showed you one of the most important of them. Not only the evidence for it, but the fact that the same mutation has been directly observed recently.

You showed a mutation that you made an assumption about. See above. You can not show anything to make microbes to man feasible. At the current mutation rate and mutation being what got us here we should see plenty of proof in mutations for this, but we don't. Mutations are a copying error and natural selection selects out the weakest. You have to have something to copy from and something to select from, you hypothesis of microbes to man does not hold up.

Isn't it time you made your peace with reality?

about time you do.

The results are in good agreement with indirect estimates, obtained by comparison of orthologous human and chimpanzee pseudogenes. The average direct estimate of the combined rate of all mutations is 1.8x10(-8) per nucleotide per generation, and the coefficient of variation of this rate across the 20 loci is 0.53. Single nucleotide substitutions are approximately 25 times more common than all other mutations, deletions are approximately three times more common than insertions, complex mutations are very rare, and CpG context increases substitution rates by an order of magnitude.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12497628


Dr Crow
(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

Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate4, indicating that the effects of deleterious mutations may have combined synergistically.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../397344a0.html

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

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


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. Whether such a small rate of deterioration in fitness constitutes a threat to the survival and welfare of the species (not to the individual) is a moot point, but this can easily be taken care of by adaptive gene substitutions that must occur from time to time, say once every few hundred generations.


And

Still waiting on you to state exactly what you believe as in everything coming from the first single cell. And please waiting on your known mutation that would show it possible for your hypothesis that everything came from the first single cell. Not an assumption. You stated this in another thread but now seem to deny it.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Perhaps you don't know what "broken gene" means. It means a gene that no longer codes for anything. As you learned, all those beneficial mutations do something that increases fitness.

I can show you many more, if you want.

The mutation that confers immunity to HIV in many people of Eurasian descent, has no other effect, except perhaps some immunity to Bubonic Plague.

http://www.nature.com/gene/journal/v.../6364113a.html

That's not what it said. It says the CCR5-Delta32 gene does that. CCR5-32 does not.

A few individuals carry a mutation known as CCR5 delta 32 in the CCR5 gene, protecting them against these strains of HIV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

CCR5-(delta)32 mutation is strongly associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis

The actual conclusion from the study?

The CCR5-Delta32 mutation may influence disease susceptibility and severity in patients with PSC.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15215889

Here's why:
About 10% of Europeans have the CCR5-Delta32 mutation.

But:
There is relatively little data on the prevalence and incidence of primary sclerosing cholangitis, with studies in different countries showing annual incidence of 0.068–1.3 per 100,000 people and prevalence 0.22–8.5 per 100,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_sclerosing_cholangitis

At worst, about 0.0085 percent of people in Europe can expect to get the disease, but about 10% of them have the gene that protects them from bubonic plague and HIV.

Glad you agree pick HIV or Liver.

Reality just blindsided you again. Surprise.

Barbarian observes:
Just useful mutations. That's how it works. As you learned, another recent mutation (Hg-c) provides protection from severe malaria, but doesn't cause sickle-cell disease. And the Milano protein which recently evolved from a single mutation a few generations ago, provides immunity to arteriosclerosis.

And so on. There are a lot of such mutations in humans.

If you are resistant to malaria, you are more likely to survive to pass on your genes.

And with this most recent mutation, there's no risk of sickle-cell disease, either. Remember, mutation plus natural selection, improves fitness.

Nevertheless, it is a defect,

Can't see how. Immunity to malaria, no chance of sickle cell disease. Sounds like win-win to me.

not an increase in complexity

Any new mutation in a population is an increase in complexity, but if you don't think so, I'd be pleased to see your numbers. Show us.

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.

Nope. This more recent mutation doesn't have that drawback. It goes without saying that a new immunity to malaria is always an improvement in function. In this case, without the drawback of the old mutation which improved fitness but at a cost that outside of malaria areas made carriers less fit. (but of course more fit in malaria environments). The new one doesn't have that drawback.

Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that ‘upward evolution’ is a fact

As you learned, "upward evolution" is a creationist fairytale.

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

Yes, it sorts out very nicely as predicted by evolutionary theory. You will find that the frequency of the sickle cell gene is, in areas with differing frequencies of malaria, precisely what the theory predicts.

We have already addressed this one. You are right there are a lot of mutations in humans. But none that would make microbes to man feasible.

As you learned, humans evolved from other primates. But of course, the direct observation of endosymbiosis (which would have been necessary for the evolution of eukaryotes from microbes) makes that a certainty.

(confuses lamarkism and Darwinism again)

Barbarian chuckles:
See, this confuses Darwinism with Lamarckism, again. Darwinism is about natural selection. This is a problem only if Lamarckism were true. It does not matter if harmful mutations are more common than beneficial ones. Natural selection tends to remove the harmful ones and preserve the good ones.

Not at the rate of 100+ deleterious nucleotide mutations per generation.

As you learned, harmful mutations are removed by natural selection, so it's not a problem. Accumulations of neutral mutations, as Kimura's data shows, can be negated by a single useful mutation in 100 generations. And as you have seen, we have many more than that.

Crow's research shows:
Until recent times, the size of the human population grew at an extremely slow rate. With the population largely density regulated, something like quasi-truncation selection seems likely. There was a high reproduction rate with a death rate such that only about two children per couple survive to reproduce. Despite the largely random nature of accidental and environmental deaths, those individuals with the smallest number of mutations enjoyed a greater chance of being among the survivors and quasi-truncation selection could operate.

However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world. In the wealthy nations, natural selection for differential mortality is greatly reduced. A newborn infant now has a large probability of surviving past the reproducing years. There are fertility differences, to be sure, but they are clearly not distributed in such a way as to eliminate mutations efficiently. Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced.
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full

He's saying that it's not surprising that fitness increased in the past because selection was more strict. He's concerned that more recently, humans have blunted natural selection, which is a real concern.

He is talking about bad mutations that will kill an infant not the slightly deleterious ones that selection will not get.

No. He's saying that modern man has found ways to prevent natural selection from acting on many harmful mutations that would have been removed in the past.

Kimura cites his data:
Whether such a small rate of deterioration in fitness constitutes a threat to the survival and welfare of the species (not to the individual) is a moot point, but this can easily be taken care of by adaptive gene substitutions that must occur from time to time, say once every few hundred generations.

The Kimura paper you keep bringing up admitted degeneration, but assumed a substitution ( which would have to be huge and occur over the entire population ) could occur in 2000-4000 years from now.

Here, you assumed God was presenting a literal history. But that's not what Genesis I is meant to be. As St. Augustine noted, it is a way of presenting the different aspects of God's creation in an understandable way. This was the most common interpretation of Genesis among the ancient Christians, and remains so today.

No ancient Christians and even scientist believed in God's creation

Still do. The only difference between you and us is, we also accept the way He did it.

Barbarian observes:
You've accepted the modern revision of the Seventh-Day Adventists as orthodoxy. And it's never been that way.

And of course, the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of creationism is directly contradicted by God's word in Scripture.

And as you learned, many ancient Jewish theologians agreed that Genesis was no literal.

A conclusion based on evidence. As you learned, the evidence clearly shows that they formed by endosymbiosis. Would you like me to remind you of all the evidence for that? We even have a modern example that was directly observed.

However, the problem with this theory is that it is still not known how each organism's DNA could be incorporated into one single genome to constitute them as a single species.

You've been misled about that. We and our mitochondria still keep separate genomes. It's just that we (and they) have lost some of our genes, and let the other do it for us.

(e.g., mitochondria and chloroplasts in animal and plant cells – endosymbiosis), it has happened only extremely rarely

If so, we were extremely lucky to have directly observed one. But of course, it only takes a few times.

Barbarian observes:
In the sense that it demonstrates a God great enough to create a universe in which common descent can happen.

You argue credit to a materialist view and give darwin more credit then God.

Darwin gave credit to God:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species.

God is a lot more powerful than creationists would let Him be.

Common descent. That's what the evidence shows.

No the evidence shows common creation, sum up homologies, homoplasy, analogy = common creator.

I know you want us to believe it, but you need more than stamping your foot and insisting. Find some evidence and we'll talk about it.

As you learned, there have been many, many muations in common descent. I just showed you one of the most important of them. Not only the evidence for it, but the fact that the same mutation has been directly observed recently.

You showed a mutation that you made an assumption about. See above. You can not show anything to make microbes to man feasible.

You'll need more than denial. You were shown that the one mutation that was critical in the evolution of microbes to eukaryotic organism is not only possible, it still happens.

Kimura explains why Sanford's story won't work:
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. Whether such a small rate of deterioration in fitness constitutes a threat to the survival and welfare of the species (not to the individual) is a moot point, but this can easily be taken care of by adaptive gene substitutions that must occur from time to time, say once every few hundred generations.

Still waiting on you to state exactly what you believe as in everything coming from the first single cell.

You're still stuck in creationist fairytales. It was an endosymbiosis of several cells that made more complex organisms possible. Libraries are free. Go and learn.

 

[Pizzaguy]

From the first video, he says:
(It starts at 2:39)
"The human race is deteriorating at a rate of 1 to 5 percent, in terms of loss of fitness, per generation" He then goes on to ramble, "it may be as high as 10 percent, depending on the rate of mutation."

I have not read the WHOLE thread, but I can't believe no one has mentioned this seemingly silly remark. I don't think this guy knows what he is talking about. :bigfrown

 

[spartakis]

From the first video, he says:
(It starts at 2:39)
"The human race is deteriorating at a rate of 1 to 5 percent, in terms of loss of fitness, per generation" He then goes on to ramble, "it may be as high as 10 percent, depending on the rate of mutation."

I have not read the WHOLE thread, but I can't believe no one has mentioned this seemingly silly remark. I don't think this guy knows what he is talking about. :bigfrown

Well you should look into it a little more.
Maybe even read his book and refferences, below is from other scientist. You should look up his credentials also he knows what he is talking about. His findings has lead him from believing in evolution to creation. Very intelligent genetic engineer.

The results are in good agreement with indirect estimates, obtained by comparison of orthologous human and chimpanzee pseudogenes. The average direct estimate of the combined rate of all mutations is 1.8x10(-8) per nucleotide per generation, and the coefficient of variation of this rate across the 20 loci is 0.53. Single nucleotide substitutions are approximately 25 times more common than all other mutations, deletions are approximately three times more common than insertions, complex mutations are very rare, and CpG context increases substitution rates by an order of magnitude.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12497628


Dr Crow
(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

Thus, the deleterious mutation rate specific to protein-coding sequences alone is close to the upper limit tolerable by a species such as humans that has a low reproductive rate4, indicating that the effects of deleterious mutations may have combined synergistically.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../397344a0.html

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

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


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. Whether such a small rate of deterioration in fitness constitutes a threat to the survival and welfare of the species (not to the individual) is a moot point, but this can easily be taken care of by adaptive gene substitutions that must occur from time to time, say once every few hundred generations.

 

[spartakis]

Barbarian observes:
Perhaps you don't know what "broken gene" means. It means a gene that no longer codes for anything. As you learned, all those beneficial mutations do something that increases fitness.

I can show you many more, if you want.

The mutation that confers immunity to HIV in many people of Eurasian descent, has no other effect, except perhaps some immunity to Bubonic Plague.

http://www.nature.com/gene/journal/v.../6364113a.html

That's not what it said. It says the CCR5-Delta32 gene does that. CCR5-32 does not.

A few individuals carry a mutation known as CCR5 delta 32 in the CCR5 gene, protecting them against these strains of HIV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5



The actual conclusion from the study?

The CCR5-Delta32 mutation may influence disease susceptibility and severity in patients with PSC.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15215889

Here's why:
About 10% of Europeans have the CCR5-Delta32 mutation.

But:
There is relatively little data on the prevalence and incidence of primary sclerosing cholangitis, with studies in different countries showing annual incidence of 0.068–1.3 per 100,000 people and prevalence 0.22–8.5 per 100,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_sclerosing_cholangitis

At worst, about 0.0085 percent of people in Europe can expect to get the disease, but about 10% of them have the gene that protects them from bubonic plague and HIV.


Reality just blindsided you again. Surprise.

Your really full of yourself, you was the one arguing that did not happen until I showed it to you twice remember, you seem to be getting blind sided.

Your wiki link says nothing about those with Crr5-delta 32

Once again
CCR5-Delta32 mutation is strongly associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15215889

Not only that
CCR5-Delta32 is a 32-bp deletion associated with significant reduction in cell surface expression of the receptor. We investigated the role of CCR5-Delta32 on susceptibility to ulcerative colitis (UC), Crohn's disease (CD) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC)

That is not a upward movement for your mutation challenge. Surprise. Quit wasting everyone's time.

Barbarian observes:
Just useful mutations. That's how it works. As you learned, another recent mutation (Hg-c) provides protection from severe malaria, but doesn't cause sickle-cell disease. And the Milano protein which recently evolved from a single mutation a few generations ago, provides immunity to arteriosclerosis.

And so on. There are a lot of such mutations in humans.



And with this most recent mutation, there's no risk of sickle-cell disease, either. Remember, mutation plus natural selection, improves fitness.

Stop time wasting. If you want mutations so bad go hang around a nuclear plant:eeeekkk

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-anem...rove-evolution

Can't see how. Immunity to malaria, no chance of sickle cell disease. Sounds like win-win to me.

See above.

Any new mutation in a population is an increase in complexity, but if you don't think so, I'd be pleased to see your numbers. Show us.

A change in frequency, but stop wasting time. You know it does nothing but damage DNA, it is a copying error. You are dodging the challenge or cannot answer.

Nope. This more recent mutation doesn't have that drawback. It goes without saying that a new immunity to malaria is always an improvement in function. In this case, without the drawback of the old mutation which improved fitness but at a cost that outside of malaria areas made carriers less fit. (but of course more fit in malaria environments). The new one doesn't have that drawback.

Sickle cell trait (or sicklemia) describes a condition in which a person has one abnormal allele of the hemoglobin beta gene (is heterozygous), but does not display the severe symptoms of sickle cell disease that occur in a person who has two copies of that allele (is homozygous). Those who are heterozygous for the sickle cell allele produce both normal and abnormal hemoglobin (the two alleles are co-dominant). Sickle cell disease is a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_trait

As you can see and know it is a disorder. Keep passing it through generations and you will have plenty of people with two alleles.

As you learned, "upward evolution" is a creationist fairytale.

It is a fairytale I agree but one you believe in not creationist. You do believe everything came from the first cell correct. I see you keep declining to comment.

Yes, it sorts out very nicely as predicted by evolutionary theory. You will find that the frequency of the sickle cell gene is, in areas with differing frequencies of malaria, precisely what the theory predicts.

No that is more what Sanford is predicting. You once again you are dodging what you believe in the big picture.

As you learned, humans evolved from other primates. But of course, the direct observation of endosymbiosis (which would have been necessary for the evolution of eukaryotes from microbes) makes that a certainty.

Sorry you can believe in the fairytale but it don't make it true.:biglol And no evidence proves it to be. You do know what single cell organism do and multicelluar do correct. You do know what cancer is created by correct. You did read the problems in the link I posted also correct.

(confuses lamarkism and Darwinism again)

Barbarian chuckles:

See, this confuses Darwinism with Lamarckism, again. Darwinism is about natural selection. This is a problem only if Lamarckism were true. It does not matter if harmful mutations are more common than beneficial ones. Natural selection tends to remove the harmful ones and preserve the good ones.

As you learned, harmful mutations are removed by natural selection, so it's not a problem. Accumulations of neutral mutations, as Kimura's data shows, can be negated by a single useful mutation in 100 generations. And as you have seen, we have many more than that.

Crow's research shows:
Until recent times, the size of the human population grew at an extremely slow rate. With the population largely density regulated, something like quasi-truncation selection seems likely. There was a high reproduction rate with a death rate such that only about two children per couple survive to reproduce. Despite the largely random nature of accidental and environmental deaths, those individuals with the smallest number of mutations enjoyed a greater chance of being among the survivors and quasi-truncation selection could operate.

However efficient natural selection was in eliminating harmful mutations in the past, it is no longer so in much of the world. In the wealthy nations, natural selection for differential mortality is greatly reduced. A newborn infant now has a large probability of surviving past the reproducing years. There are fertility differences, to be sure, but they are clearly not distributed in such a way as to eliminate mutations efficiently. Except for pre-natal mortality, natural selection for effective mutation removal has been greatly reduced.
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full

He's saying that it's not surprising that fitness increased in the past because selection was more strict. He's concerned that more recently, humans have blunted natural selection, which is a real concern.



No. He's saying that modern man has found ways to prevent natural selection from acting on many harmful mutations that would have been removed in the past.

Kimura cites his data:
Whether such a small rate of deterioration in fitness constitutes a threat to the survival and welfare of the species (not to the individual) is a moot point, but this can easily be taken care of by adaptive gene substitutions that must occur from time to time, say once every few hundred generations.

He is talking about bad mutations that will kill an infant not the slightly deleterious ones that selection will not get.

The Kimura paper you keep bringing up admitted degeneration, but assumed a substitution ( which would have to be huge and occur over the entire population ) could occur in 2000-4000 years from now. This is very unlikely to occur especially over the entire population and be able to substitute out the 20,000 mutations to occur over that time.

Here, you assumed God was presenting a literal history. But that's not what Genesis I is meant to be. As St. Augustine noted, it is a way of presenting the different aspects of God's creation in an understandable way. This was the most common interpretation of Genesis among the ancient Christians, and remains so today.

No ancient Christians and even scientist believed in God's creation, as Genesis states, it's just like the rest of Genesis is ment for historical. You have been fooled. If God wanted it to state evolution he would have stated something simple like this. In the beginning God created the first organism and after a very long time adam and eve developed as beast of the earth. Something of that nature. How can you read Genesis and get God ment for it to mean evolution. Could God not explain evolution, could he not even get the days in the correct order in what they evolved in? I don't think so. Theistic evolution is a cop out to a materialistic view.

Augustine did not believe in an old earth or evolution, he gives you no support.

Still do. The only difference between you and us is, we also accept the way He did it.

Barbarian observes:
You've accepted the modern revision of the Seventh-Day Adventists as orthodoxy. And it's never been that way.

The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC.[10] The Hebrew Calendar has traditionally since the 4th century AD by Hillel II dated the creation to 3761 BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
I accepted the way of how it has always been sorry to brake it to you, you accepted a cop-out.
Of course were many heresies even in the early Church. Thats what we are to preach against.
People believe in a young earth and creation way before your hypothesis and heresies came to be.

You believe he did not even get the order in animal creation correct, you have a lot of problems.

 

[spartakis]

continued

And of course, the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of creationism is directly contradicted by God's word in Scripture.

Were do we state this please show, and can God not create life out of nothing, you seem to act like he is powerless and needs a materialistic view.

And as you learned, many ancient Jewish theologians agreed that Genesis was no literal.

You have learned thats no so. You have been fooled by heresies see above.

A conclusion based on evidence. As you learned, the evidence clearly shows that they formed by endosymbiosis. Would you like me to remind you of all the evidence for that? We even have a modern example that was directly observed.

That would have to be your conclusion if you believe in a fairytale, but you have no evidence, sorry see above, and last post. Quit wasting time.

You've been misled about that. We and our mitochondria still keep separate genomes. It's just that we (and they) have lost some of our genes, and let the other do it for us.

Facts stated that, not me. That is cited by wiki. You should really study that more and what I stated above.

Barbarian observes:
In the sense that it demonstrates a God great enough to create a universe in which common descent can happen.



Darwin gave credit to God:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species.

But you should know his real thoughts was we could do it without God.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.
Darwin

God is a lot more powerful than creationists would let Him be.

You are the one that denies he is powerful enough to do it how he said he did. Evolution that most believe in states he is not needed. So which would give him more glory. One day we both will have to answer for our beliefs. what would be worse twisting his words and giving men authority, or taking his words as he gave them and giving them authority over men.

Common descent. That's what the evidence shows.

No the evidence shows common creation, sum up homologies, homoplasy, analogy = common creator.

I know you want us to believe it, but you need more than stamping your foot and insisting. Find some evidence and we'll talk about it.

Same evidence but it is stronger for creator, you create things to explain out similarities like homoplasy and analogy. The evidence fits God's word of one creator better sorry.

As you learned, there have been many, many muations in common descent. I just showed you one of the most important of them. Not only the evidence for it, but the fact that the same mutation has been directly observed recently.

You'll need more than denial. You were shown that the one mutation that was critical in the evolution of microbes to eukaryotic organism is not only possible, it still happens.

You're still stuck in creationist fairytales. It was an endosymbiosis of several cells that made more complex organisms possible. Libraries are free. Go and learn.

Your assumptions are fairytales. I learn daily, about time you start. Take off the blinders.
Once again you are believing in fairytales, and you even call them fairytales yourself. So why keep dodging, and contradicting yourself.

Please answer below before you keep wasting my time.

Still waiting on you to state exactly what you believe as in everything coming from the first single cell. And please waiting on your known mutation that would show it possible for your hypothesis that everything came from the first single cell. Not an assumption. You stated this in another thread but now seem to deny it.

Why do you keep dodging clearing up above. Is it because you believe the fairytale you call it. But can not show hard proof.

You have about what 500k DNA 'letters' stored in the simplest self-reproducing organism, and around 3 billion in each human cell nucleus. That's a great deal more and many new features. That mutations and Natural selection can not show anything close to make your microbes to man feasible.

That is a big upward movement, AND THAT IS THE FAIRYTALE YOU BELIEVE IN WITH A LOT OF NOVEL FEATURES BEING ADDED. And you declined to answer above.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian:
And of course, the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of creationism is directly contradicted by God's word in Scripture.

Were do we state this please show,

"The God of the Bible created all life ex nihilo (out of nothing) during six, 24 hour days of abrupt Creation. "
http://www.2cor13verse5.com/?tag=ex-nihilo

Can one consider Genesis allegorically? No, I don't think so.
It is not presented that way. The entire book, including Genesis
1 and 2, is presented as eyewitness accounts, actually, and although
they contain elements we may not understand, those elements are
not mythological or presented as anything remotely resembling
allegory.

The Bible says God created life 'ex nihilo' or 'out of nothing.'
http://paracleteforum.org/archive/email/apologetics/evolutionbio/dialogue.html

In closing, we are told that the God of the Bible created all life ex-nihilo, from nothing.
http://lamarzulli.wordpress.com/tag/ex-nihilo/

Creationists have always rested their arguments on the notion that science could not explain the fundamental creation of life ex nihilo.

http://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2012/04/27/science-and-the-question/

The Bible says God created life 'ex nihilo' or 'out of nothing.'
http://paracleteforum.org/archive/em...dialogue.html\

and can God not create life out of nothing, you seem to act like he is powerless and needs a materialistic view.

You've confused what God can do and what He says He did. Two different things. If you're willing to admit that YE creationism is wrong to insist on "life ex nihilo", congratulations on being able to think for yourself for once. Are you?

And as you learned, many ancient Jewish theologians agreed that Genesis was not literal.

You have learned thats no so.

A partial number is listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution

Barbarian observes:
A conclusion based on evidence. As you learned, the evidence clearly shows that they formed by endosymbiosis. Would you like me to remind you of all the evidence for that? We even have a modern example that was directly observed.

That would have to be your conclusion if you believe in a fairytale, but you have no evidence,

It was directly observed to happen. Can't do better than that.

Barbarian observes:
You've been misled about that. We and our mitochondria still keep separate genomes. It's just that we (and they) have lost some of our genes, and let the other do it for us.

Facts stated that, not me. That is cited by wiki.

Let's take a look...

Although most of a cell's DNA is contained in the cell nucleus, the mitochondrion has its own independent genome. Further, its DNA shows substantial similarity to bacterial genomes...A mitochondrion contains DNA, which is organized as several copies of a single, circular chromosome. This mitochondrial chromosome contains genes for redox proteins such as those of the respiratory chain. The CoRR hypothesis proposes that this co-location is required for redox regulation. The mitochondrial genome codes for some RNAs of ribosomes, and the twenty-two tRNAs necessary for the translation of messenger RNAs into protein. The circular structure is also found in prokaryotes, and the similarity is extended by the fact that mitochondrial DNA is organized with a variant genetic code similar to that of Proteobacteria.[65] This suggests that their ancestor, the so-called proto-mitochondrion, was a member of the Proteobacteria.[65] In particular, the proto-mitochondrion was probably closely related to the rickettsia...A recent study[68] by researchers of the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa and the Oregon State University indicates that the SAR11 clade of bacteria shares a relatively recent common ancestor with the mitochondria existing in most eukaryotic cells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion

How about that?

You should really study that more and what I stated above.

Surprise.

Barbarian observes:
In the sense that it demonstrates a God great enough to create a universe in which common descent can happen.

Darwin gave credit to God:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species.

But you should know his real thoughts was we could do it without God.

Odd then, that he wrote otherwise.

Darwin suggests how God might have done it:
But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

Kind of like Genesis. Oh wait, you guys don't believe Genesis about that.

God is a lot more powerful than creationists would let Him be.

You are the one that denies he is powerful enough to do it how he said he did.

Let's take another look...

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Nope. That's how He said He did it.

Evolution that most believe in states he is not needed.

No. Evolutionary theory makes no comment on that at all.

So which would give him more glory. One day we both will have to answer for our beliefs. what would be worse twisting his words and giving men authority

That, as you see, is YE creationism.

Common descent. That's what the evidence shows.

No the evidence shows common creation, sum up homologies, homoplasy, analogy = common creator.

I know you want us to believe it, but you need more than stamping your foot and insisting. Find some evidence and we'll talk about it.

Same evidence

But you just can't think of it right now, um?

As you learned, there have been many, many muations in common descent. I just showed you one of the most important of them. Not only the evidence for it, but the fact that the same mutation has been directly observed recently.

Still waiting on you to state exactly what you believe as in everything coming from the first single cell.

Common descent doesn't assume a first single cell, although God could have done it that way.

And please waiting on your known mutation that would show it possible for your hypothesis that everything came from the first single cell. Not an assumption.

I showed you that it's been directly observed. Can't do better than that.

That is a big upward movement,

As you learned, "upward" doesn't mean anything in biology, but of course, the mutations that led to the evolution of eukaryotes from microbes is certainly a huge step. What other step do you doubt? If you'd tell us, I could see what the evidence for that might be.

AND THAT IS THE FAIRYTALE YOU BELIEVE IN WITH A LOT OF NOVEL FEATURES BEING ADDED.

Even if you're frustrated, screaming is considered impolite.

And you declined to answer above.

All your questions have been answered. Some of the things you assumed were in evolutionary theory, just aren't there. So for those, you're going to have to be satisfied with that answer.

 

[spartakis]

Here I will clear up what I believe but you need to clear up what believe.

I believe God Created the original Heaven and Earth from nothing. I believe God did it how he said he did it. Yes he made us out of dust.

Creation of heaven and earth
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Creation of the light
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Creation of the firmament
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
The earth separated from the waters
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Creation of the sun, moon and stars
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Creation of fish, fowl, beasts and cattle
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Creation man in the image of God
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Provision for food
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Evolution fits nowhere close in any of this. So you decline the word of God.


No ancient Christians and even scientist believed in God's creation, as Genesis states, it's just like the rest of Genesis is ment for historical. You have been fooled. If God wanted it to state evolution he would have stated something simple like this. In the beginning God created the first organism and after a very long time adam and eve developed as beast of the earth. Something of that nature. How can you read Genesis and get God ment for it to mean evolution. Could God not explain evolution, could he not even get the days in the correct order in what they evolved in? I don't think so. Theistic evolution is a cop out to a materialistic view.

Augustine did not believe in an old earth or evolution, he gives you no support.

The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC.[10] The Hebrew Calendar has traditionally since the 4th century AD by Hillel II dated the creation to 3761 BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
I accepted the way of how it has always been sorry to brake it to you, you accepted a cop-out.
Of course were many heresies even in the early Church. Thats what we are to preach against.
People believe in a young earth and creation way before your hypothesis and heresies came to be.

You believe he did not even get the order in animal creation correct, you have a lot of problems. The New Testament teaches Genesis is true and even speaks of Noah and the Flood and God who created all things.

You are the one that denies he is powerful enough to do it how he said he did. Evolution that most believe in states he is not needed. So which would give him more glory. One day we both will have to answer for our beliefs. what would be worse twisting his words and giving men authority, or taking his words as he gave them and giving them authority over men.




No the evidence shows common creation, sum up homologies, homoplasy, analogy = common creator.


The major problem creationist have with evolution is the microbe to men hypothesis, which is where your common decent leads back to, remote bacteria ancestors. Even the hypothesis that men and women evolved from a harry tailed quadruped common ancestor is far from what the truth of God says and has no real evidence for this assumption. They state the reason we see all this complex and diverse life is because of processes of mutations and natural selection. Well the more we find out about genetics the more you see atheist like Anthony Flew, who turned to believing in creation, and Dr. John Sanford who became a theistic evolutionist and then decided the evidence showed creation. Mainly because the process of mutations and natural selection cannot account for this hypothesis. A mutation is only a copying error. It has to have information to copy to be an error, and cannot add any new complex feature. As you can see there are many complex features it would have to account for to turn a single cell into all the life you see in the world. Natural selection is the process of survival of the fittest. It cannot add things like gills, flipper, heart, backbone, lungs, eye and etc…. Even artificial breading can only remove traits not add them. So can these two processes make microbes to man feasible. Nowhere close.

Some will say gene duplication can account for this process. Think about that if you have a book with a duplicate page (rare) that is not any new information. This process cannot account for any new novel features. For mutations to add a complex feature it would require thousands of letters of DNA and would have to be accidentally coded in proper sequence. With only a handful of beneficial mutations out of a huge number of mutations the ideal of microbes to man is nothing more then a rejection of the evidence God has giving you. Even the beneficial mutations cannot show any added information. A mutation of CRR5-Delta 32 can give immunity to HIV but not only does this occur through a deletion of information in the mutation it is strongly associated with liver disease. You also have a mutation of sickle cell anemia causing resistance to malaria. Sickle cell is a blood disorder. Even if they only have it in trait only form they will still bread more traits of sickle cell disease into the population and therefore it will have more people with sickle cell disease not just as a trait. This is still a defect and shows no upward movement.

At the current mutation rates we should see many mutations causing genetic information increase. Creating new novel features. We are not talking about gene frequencies, which evolutionist will try and state show an increase but does not. But think about what you see.



The human Genome is very, very complex and the more we learn the more complex it gets. We have no computer program anywhere close to how complex it is. But yet no one would deny a computer program was not created by someone with intelligence. One day you will stand before your creator and have no excuse for unbelief.


Still waiting on you to state exactly what you believe as in everything coming from the first single cell. What you believe God actually done in creation, And please waiting on your known mutation that would show it possible for your hypothesis that everything came from the first single cell. Not an assumption. You stated this in another thread but now seem to deny it. From what I understand you believe everything came from the first single cell, but call it a fairytale and you cannot show a mutations anywhere close to make it feasible.

So far declined to answer.

 

[Barbarian]

Here I will clear up what I believe but you need to clear up what believe.

I believe God Created the original Heaven and Earth from nothing. I believe God did it how he said he did it.

No, you don't. You've added all sorts of things. If you now deny the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo", good for you. Do you.

Yes he made us out of dust.

The problem is that you don't accept the way He did that.

Evolution fits nowhere close in any of this.

Christians disagree with you. It's entirely compatible with evolution.

No ancient Christians and even scientist believed in God's creation, as Genesis states, it's just like the rest of Genesis is ment for historical.

Genesis doesn't say it's meant to be a history. You've added your own wishes to it, to make it more acceptable to you.

You have been fooled. If God wanted it to state evolution he would have stated something simple like this.

How nice to be able to fully understand God and what He thinks.

Augustine did not believe in an old earth or evolution, he gives you no support.

He thought the world was old, as people understood "old" at the time. That was the evidence they had then. But he acknowledged that animals developed from pre-existing things that had the potential to become animals.

Saint Augustine (353-430) painted an even clearer picture. He taught that the original germs of living things came in two forms, one placed by the Creator in animals and plants, and a second variety scattered throughout the environment, destined to become active only under the right conditions.

He said that the Biblical account of the Creation should not be read as literally occupying six days, but six units of time, while the passage `In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth' should be interpreted:

As if this were the seed of the heaven and the earth, although as yet all the matter of heaven and of earth was in confusion; but because it was certain that from this the heaven and the earth would be, therefore the material itself is called by that name.

Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself.

God created the potential for the heavens and earth, and for life, but the details worked themselves out in accordance with the laws laid down by God, on this picture.

It wasn't necessary for God to create each individual species (let alone each individual living thing) in the process called Special Creation. Instead, the Creator provided the seeds of the Universe and of life, and let them develop in their own time.

In all but name, except for introducing the hand of God to start off the Universe, Augustine's theory was a theory of evolution, and one which stands up well alongside modern theories of the evolution of the Universe and the evolution of life on Earth.'

His views were influential throughout the Middle Ages, and followed by such important thinkers as William of Occam (in the fourteenth century) and, most importantly, by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century.

Aquinas simply quoted Augustine's teaching on the subject of the Creation and the interpretation of Genesis; but as he was one of the highest authorities in the Christian Church at the time, and has been one of the most influential since, this amounted to an official seal of approval for the idea that God had set the Universe in motion and then rested.
http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Life-Science-Michael-White/dp/1847391494

You believe he did not even get the order in animal creation correct, you have a lot of problems.

Over 1500 years ago, Christians realized it wasn't a literal history, but a way of categorizing creation in an undertstandable way. Your's is a modern revision to Christianity, no older than the last century.

The New Testament teaches Genesis is true

Genesis is true. You just don't want to accept it the way He said it.

You are the one that denies he is powerful enough to do it how he said he did.

Even if you're angry, you still shouldn't say things you know aren't true. I told you He could have done it any way He chose. What upsets you, is the way He chose to do it.

Evolution that most believe in states he is not needed.

You've already been reminded that isn't true, either. Nothing in science can verify or deny God.

So which would give him more glory. One day we both will have to answer for our beliefs. what would be worse twisting his words and giving men authority, or taking his words as he gave them and giving them authority over men.

Even your twisting of His words won't hurt you at Judgement. It is what's in your heart, not what you believe about creation. The real evil of YE creationism is that it tends to make atheists of people. Notice one seeker here has previously been put off, thinking that YE was a necessary part of Christianity.

No the evidence shows common creation, sum up homologies, homoplasy, analogy = common creator.

As you learned, there is no such evidence. That's just a mantra they taught you so you could resist the evidence. It's why you don't cite any "evidence" when you chant the mantra.

The major problem creationist have with evolution is the microbe to men hypothesis, which is where your common decent leads back to, remote bacteria ancestors. Even the hypothesis that men and women evolved from a harry tailed quadruped common ancestor

We evolved from primates that didn't have tails. You've been reminded about that, too.

is far from what the truth of God says and has no real evidence for this assumption. They state the reason we see all this complex and diverse life is because of processes of mutations and natural selection.

Well the more we find out about genetics the more you see atheist like Anthony Flew, who turned to believing in creation,

Flew accepts evolution. And he says the Christian God is a kind of "cosmic Saddam Hussein."

Professor Antony Flew, a lifelong campaigner for atheism, has decided that DNA is so complicated that there must be intelligence behind it. He said: “I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins.â€

Pretty much a deist. While I'm pleased he realized God is necessary, I'm sorry he seems to not have found Him.

and Dr. John Sanford who became a theistic evolutionist and then decided the evidence showed creation.

Not though, that while he was promoting his religion, he withheld from you information brought forth by the scientists he was citing. Not exactly a Christian behavior. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

A mutation is only a copying error. It has to have information to copy to be an error, and cannot add any new complex feature.

In Hall's E. coli experiments, mutations produced a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Can't do much better than that.

Natural selection is the process of survival of the fittest. It cannot add things like gills, flipper, heart, backbone, lungs, eye and etc….

Recently, you were shown how a heart can easily evolve. In fact, there are many of the necessary transitional forms still living. What stage in the evolution of the heart from a simple blood vessel to a complex mammalian heart do you think is impossible? If you don't want to talk about hearts, pick another structure, and I'll show you that.

Even artificial breading can only remove traits not add them.

As you learned, mutation and natural selection does add new traits. You were shown many of them.

So can these two processes make microbes to man feasible.

You recently learned how the most important step in the evolution of microbes to animals occurred. No point in denying it. Everyone saw it.

Some will say gene duplication can account for this process.

Often, it does. The Milano mutation, that protects people against arteriosclerosis, was such a case.

Think about that if you have a book with a duplicate page (rare) that is not any new information.

Actually, it is. "R" is one thing, "RR" is another, and is new information. Would you like me to show you how it's calculated?

This process cannot account for any new novel features.

As you learned, evolution doesn't make anything de novo. It always modifies something already there.

For mutations to add a complex feature it would require thousands of letters of DNA and would have to be accidentally coded in proper sequence.

Darwin's discovery was that it wasn't accidental. That's how Hall's bacteria evolved a new enzyme system, or the way that species of amoeba evolved a new endosymbiosis.

With only a handful of beneficial mutations out of a huge number of mutations the ideal of microbes to man is nothing more then a rejection of the evidence God has giving you.

See above. You're still having trouble getting your mind around natural selection.

Even the beneficial mutations cannot show any added information.

All mutations add information to a population. Would you like me to show you the numbers?

A mutation of CRR5-Delta 32 can give immunity to HIV but not only does this occur through a deletion of information in the mutation it is strongly associated with liver disease.

Apparently not. About ten percent of Europeans have the modified gene, but only a tiny fraction of one percent of them have the liver disease you think is strongly associated with it. Given that bubonic plague took out one-third to one-quarter of all Europeans in the great plague, it's not surprising that natural selection would favor complete immunity to plague over such a tiny chance of developing a different disease.

You also have a mutation of sickle cell anemia causing resistance to malaria. Sickle cell is a blood disorder. Even if they only have it in trait only form they will still bread more traits of sickle cell disease into the population and therefore it will have more people with sickle cell disease not just as a trait. This is still a defect and shows no upward movement.

It merely increases fitness in malaria areas. But the more recent mutation I showed you prevents severe malaria, while not causing sickle cell disease. The Hg-s mutation was favorable, because it increases the likelihood of surviving in areas with malaria. The Hg-c mutation is even better, because even homozgotes don't get sickle cell disorder. Good example of the way mutations are continuously mutated to better fitness.

At the current mutation rates we should see many mutations causing genetic information increase.

Sometimes. Evolution can be removal of genes as well. The amount of "information" really has little to do with fitness.

The human Genome is very, very complex and the more we learn the more complex it gets. We have no computer program anywhere close to how complex it is.

There are many more complex. There are no more than 30,000 human genes. Unfortunately, because most computer programs were designed, not evolved, they lack the elegance of the human genome. But that's changing, too. Here's an early example:

Let Darwinism loose in an electronics lab and just watch what it
creates. A lean, mean machine that nobody understands. Clive Davidson
reports

"GO!" barks the researcher into the microphone. The oscilloscope in
front of him displays a steady green line across the top of its
screen. "Stop!" he says and the line immediately drops to the bottom.

Between the microphone and the oscilloscope is an electronic circuit
that discriminates between the two words. It puts out 5 volts when it
hears "go" and cuts off the signal when it hears "stop".

It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a
task--except in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a
small number of basic components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson,
does not know how it works. He can't ask the designer because there
wasn't one. Instead, the circuit evolved from a "primordial soup" of
silicon components guided by the principles of genetic variation and
survival of the fittest.
http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=73

It's not just theory, now. Engineers are now using evolution to solve problems to complex for design. Turns out, God knew what He was doing, after all.

One day you will stand before your creator and have no excuse for unbelief.

God doesn't care what anyone thinks of your new doctrines. Unless you substitute them for Christianity.

Still waiting on you to state exactly what you believe as in everything coming from the first single cell.

As you learned, it might not have been a single cell. It could have been a lot of cells, with no barrier to mixing at that time. Only one form survived to produce the variation we see today. You've seen the evidence for this several times. Do I have to show you again?

You asked for a mutation to show this is possible. I showed you the most important step in the evolution of eukaryotes from microbes. And now you've repeatedly denied what everyone here can see is true.

If you don't think that's enough, give me any step in common descent, and I'll see what we can do to show you how that evolved.

But since you've repeatedly declined to do it, I don't think you're going to answer.

 

[spartakis]

Here I will clear up what I believe but you need to clear up what believe.



No, you don't. You've added all sorts of things. If you now deny the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo", good for you. Do you.

I just showed you what I believe yet you are going to tell me what I believe. Go back and read it. I believe in a young earth and creation the way God said he did it.

The problem is that you don't accept the way He did that.

Thats your problem.

Christians disagree with you. It's entirely compatible with evolution.

Ya a lot of 'Christians' think drinking alcohol is okay, cursing, that infant baptism is Biblical, salvation in works and not Christ and .......
Christians disagree with you, and these are the one's that take Gods word serious and gives it authority over men, not men authority over it.

Genesis doesn't say it's meant to be a history. You've added your own wishes to it, to make it more acceptable to you.

Thats how it was written to read Genesis and deny it is just denying Gods word cause you don't like it.

How nice to be able to fully understand God and what He thinks.

No not fully I just know it was written so simple people could understand, and God could of described evolution pretty simple, instead he made sure he got the Glory through creation and funny how he did it in the exact opposite order you believe everything evolved. You don't even think he could have got the order of evolution correct if that is what he wanted to explain?

He thought the world was old, as people understood "old" at the time. That was the evidence they had then. But he acknowledged that animals developed from pre-existing things that had the potential to become animals.

Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
He thought everything was created in less than 6 days.

Over 1500 years ago, Christians realized it wasn't a literal history, but a way of categorizing creation in an undertstandable way. Your's is a modern revision to Christianity, no older than the last century.

You mean the heresies became.
The belief of young earth and creation was before that and still is.

The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC.[10] The Hebrew Calendar has traditionally since the 4th century AD by Hillel II dated the creation to 3761 BC.[11][12][13][14][15]
The decline of support for a Biblically literal young Earth during the 19th century was opposed by first the scriptural geologists[43] and then by the founders of the Victoria Institute
The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the twentieth century saw a revival of interest in young Earth creationism, as a part of the movement's rejection of the explanation of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
I have showed you this before. Even the founding fathers of science died believing God's words in Genesis to be true.

There were always heresies and always will be. Paul and all others taught against them as should we.

Genesis is true. You just don't want to accept it the way He said it.

I know it's true i accept everything he said you don't. You have admitted this.

You are the one that denies he is powerful enough to do it how he said he did.

Even if you're angry, you still shouldn't say things you know aren't true. I told you He could have done it any way He chose. What upsets you, is the way He chose to do it.

Angry, no it takes a lot to get me angry and I can bet I would never get angry here, and I like how you can tell that by the text. You like assuming other peoples thoughts, but are confused on your own by the amount of your contradictions. No you don't believe the way he did it and he even told you how he did it. You just give mens opinions authority over his word to compromise with a materialistic view.

You've already been reminded that isn't true, either. Nothing in science can verify or deny God.

Never said it could, in fact to me science has only proving God nd gives him Glory over all.

Even your twisting of His words won't hurt you at Judgement. It is what's in your heart, not what you believe about creation. The real evil of YE creationism is that it tends to make atheists of people. Notice one seeker here has previously been put off, thinking that YE was a necessary part of Christianity.

I don't twist his words, remember you do that when you don't like them and stop giving them authority over your beliefs. You changed the word of God to compromise with a world view a materialism. You should know what the Bible says about the world.

As you learned, there is no such evidence. That's just a mantra they taught you so you could resist the evidence. It's why you don't cite any "evidence" when you chant the mantra.

As you have learned same evidence.
You use homology to show common decent and used
homoplasy and analogy to explain out similarities because they don't fit common decent. So you have one group that you can twist to fit your belief and two that don't. A common creator the one and only God of the Bible doing it how he said he did accounts for all 3. Why deny his word when the evidence is clear. He even tells you of his evidence.

We evolved from primates that didn't have tails. You've been reminded about that, too.

You can keep pushing up the line but do you always forget what you state on other threads, how you was showing all this evidence that points to quadruped. And remote bacteria ancestors you have stated in this thread. Once again you are contradicting your beliefs.

Not though, that while he was promoting his religion, he withheld from you information brought forth by the scientists he was citing. Not exactly a Christian behavior. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

You mean in one video he left out an assumption he don't believe in. And yes his finding brought him from evolution to the word of God being true.

In Hall's E. coli experiments, mutations produced a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Can't do much better than that.

We have addressed this, are you repeating the one where he deletes an enzyme and it came back.
In 1982, Barry Hall of the University of Rochester began a series of experiments in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase. The loss of this gene makes it impossible for the bacteria to metabolize the sugar lactose. What happened next? Under appropriate selection conditions Hall found that the bacteria evolved not only the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme (called the evolved beta-galactosidase gene, or ebg), but also a control sequence that switched the new gene on when glucose was present.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html
And this was not a new function just happened at a different time.
Not a big deal at all.

You recently learned how the most important step in the evolution of microbes to animals occurred. No point in denying it. Everyone saw it.

No you have giving an assumption on your materialistic hypothesis.

Often, it does. The Milano mutation, that protects people against arteriosclerosis, was such a case.

Actually, it is. "R" is one thing, "RR" is another, and is new information. Would you like me to show you how it's calculated?

It is a duplication. Nothing brand new. It duplicates info already there. So you are saying all the intelligence came from accidents? I know you believe that but sorry you should study DNA and information a little more.

As you learned, evolution doesn't make anything de novo. It always modifies something already there.

You have learned from the first microbe there was many things that had to come that was not there to modify.

See above. You're still having trouble getting your mind around natural selection.

No just how you claim mutations and natural selection created all the diversification and complexity we see today, when empirical evidence shows something different.

All mutations add information to a population. Would you like me to show you the numbers?

You mean change frequency, been there done that.

Apparently not. About ten percent of Europeans have the modified gene, but only a tiny fraction of one percent of them have the liver disease you think is strongly associated with it. Given that bubonic plague took out one-third to one-quarter of all Europeans in the great plague, it's not surprising that natural selection would favor complete immunity to plague over such a tiny chance of developing a different disease.

The article you took that from was not addressing the mutation at hand. Try again.

It merely increases fitness in malaria areas. But the more recent mutation I showed you prevents severe malaria, while not causing sickle cell disease. The Hg-s mutation was favorable, because it increases the likelihood of surviving in areas with malaria. The Hg-c mutation is even better, because even homozgotes don't get sickle cell disorder. Good example of the way mutations are continuously mutated to better fitness.

The traits will be breed into the population and that means sickle cell will.

Sometimes. Evolution can be removal of genes as well. The amount of "information" really has little to do with fitness.

No but to get from what you believe the first life was to where we are it has a lot to do with it.

There are many more complex. There are no more than 30,000 human genes. Unfortunately, because most computer programs were designed, not evolved, they lack the elegance of the human genome. But that's changing, too. Here's an early example:

Thats because intelligence can't evolve it has to be designed by someone intelligent.
You are talking about natural selection something no one disagrees with. Yes the worse technology will be put to rest. You are wasting my time. We have always weeded out the week in things. Cause the used certain words don't make it new.

God doesn't care what anyone thinks of your new doctrines. Unless you substitute them for Christianity.

Well they are not new I have shown you this.
John 5:46-47
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

As you learned, it might not have been a single cell. It could have been a lot of cells, with no barrier to mixing at that time. Only one form survived to produce the variation we see today. You've seen the evidence for this several times. Do I have to show you again?

You asked for a mutation to show this is possible. I showed you the most important step in the evolution of eukaryotes from microbes. And now you've repeatedly denied what everyone here can see is true.

If you don't think that's enough, give me any step in common descent, and I'll see what we can do to show you how that evolved.

But since you've repeatedly declined to do it, I don't think you're going to answer

.
You have made several assumptions to hold to your materialistic view. You heart issue was addressed in another thread. All you have done is made assumptions. I asked for a known mutation to show an upward movement to show it possible for new features to evolve. You have shown something and made an assumption about something else. We could spend a complete thread on endosymbiosis and the problems with the theory but that is not what I asked. I am aware of the process and the assumption that are made by it. The assumptions have many problems. My time is limited I don't have all day to talk about this like you do. So stick to the details of the question.

You believe in the fairytale that everything came from the first cell, with many assumption on how it may have happened. There would of been a lot of increase in complexity. You have about what 500k DNA 'letters' stored in the simplest self-reproducing organism, and around 3 billion in each human cell nucleus. That's a great deal more and many new features. That mutations and Natural selection can not show anything close to make your microbes to man feasible.

But you have not shown how a known mutations can account for this increase. I am talking about a mutation by definition of mutation. Obviously everything did not come in the way of endosybiosis. Your assumptions of what did come by that have many problems. But I am not wasting time addressing them. Are you going to continue to dodge this or will (can) you give an answer?

BTW the Bible says the only way to please God is with faith. I am sorry for the board member you speak of that did not have enough faith in God's word being true to seek the answers and evidence to support it. I know many people who joined certain religious groups because they thought that they would be okay if they continued in their sin of drinking and etc.... Some who declined Christianity all together because they did not want to leave their sins. For some it is about religion and things they don't want to give up. For others its about a daily sacrifice for Christ.

 

[Barbarian]

I believe in a young earth and creation the way God said he did it.

You believe the first, but you don't accept creation God's way. If you now reject the young earth doctrine of life ex nihilo, that's commendable. Do you?

Ya a lot of 'Christians' think drinking alcohol is okay

Luke 7:34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking: and you say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a drinker of wine, a friend of publicans and sinners.

Barbarian observes:
Genesis doesn't say it's meant to be a history. You've added your own wishes to it, to make it more acceptable to you.

Thats how it was written to read Genesis

I know you want us to believe it. But you'll need more than insisting you're right.

If God wanted it to state evolution he would have stated something simple like this.

How nice to be able to fully understand God and what He thinks.

No not fully

You're presuming you know better than God.

Barbarian explains Augustine's idea of evolution:
He thought the world was old, as people understood "old" at the time. That was the evidence they had then. But he acknowledged that animals developed from pre-existing things that had the potential to become animals.

Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God

No. He thought the initial creation was instantaneous, with other things evolving from that initial creation. As the Bible says.

Augustine likens the Creation to the growth of a tree from its seed, which has the potential to become a tree, but does so only through a long, slow process, in accordance with the environment in which it finds itself.

God created the potential for the heavens and earth, and for life, but the details worked themselves out in accordance with the laws laid down by God, on this picture.

It wasn't necessary for God to create each individual species (let alone each individual living thing) in the process called Special Creation. Instead, the Creator provided the seeds of the Universe and of life, and let them develop in their own time.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/evolution.htm

Barbarian observes:
Over 1500 years ago, Christians realized it wasn't a literal history, but a way of categorizing creation in an undertstandable way. Your's is a modern revision to Christianity, no older than the last century.

You mean the heresies became.

The unorthodox always call Christian belief "heresy." You're not unique.

Barbarian observes:
Genesis is true. You just don't want to accept it the way He said it.

I know it's true

Except the parts you don't like.

i accept everything he said you don't. You have admitted this.

No, and it won't help your cause by lying about it. I merely accept it the way He said it. As you learned your new interpretation is no older than the last century.

You are the one that denies he is powerful enough to do it how he said he did.

Even if you're angry, you still shouldn't say things you know aren't true. I told you He could have done it any way He chose. What upsets you, is the way He chose to do it.

Angry, no it takes a lot to get me angry and I can bet I would never get angry here, and I like how you can tell that by the text.

In general, when someone loses all sense of caution and starts saying things he knows aren't true, that's a pretty good tip-off.

Evolution that most believe in states he is not needed.

Barbarian observes:
You've already been reminded that isn't true, either. Nothing in science can verify or deny God.

Never said it could

I restored the context. No point in you denying it.

Even your twisting of His words won't hurt you at Judgement. It is what's in your heart, not what you believe about creation. The real evil of YE creationism is that it tends to make atheists of people. Notice one seeker here has previously been put off, thinking that YE was a necessary part of Christianity.

I don't twist his words

I hope you don't do it consciously. But you do it.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, there is no such evidence. That's just a mantra they taught you so you could resist the evidence. It's why you don't cite any "evidence" when you chant the mantra.

(denial)

You use homology to show common decent and used
homoplasy and analogy to explain out similarities because they don't fit common decent.

Yes. As you learned, creationists can try, but they are completely unable explain analogous organs, or why homology produces entirely different things, using the same organs, or why in unrelated lines, it's done by analogy.

And the kicker, which you have repeatedly failed to answer, is why we find numerous transitionals between homologies, but none at all between analogies.

Do you think people haven't noticed that you're hiding from that question?

A common creator the one and only God of the Bible doing it how he said he did accounts for all 3.

But as we established earlier, you don't accept the way He said He did it.

Barbarian clears up another misconception:
We evolved from primates that didn't have tails. You've been reminded about that, too.

You can keep pushing up the line but do you always forget what you state on other threads, how you was showing all this evidence that points to quadruped.

Apes are quadrupeds. I thought you knew. They don't have the back, hip, and knee/foot problems we do, because they don't stand upright much, and so the forces are much lower on their joints. We are bipeds, with all those structures only partially evolved to adapt. So we have a lot of trouble with them.

And remote bacteria ancestors you have stated in this thread.

You requested one mutation that would make it possible, and I showed you the most important of them. And we know it's true, because it's been directly observed to happen. No point in you denying that, either.

Barbarian, regarding Sanford:
Not though, that while he was promoting his religion, he withheld from you information brought forth by the scientists he was citing. Not exactly a Christian behavior. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

You mean in one video he left out an assumption he don't believe in.

He cited Kimura, but witheld the fact that the cited research showed that his assumption was wrong. You saw it. No point in denying it.

Barbarian observes:
In Hall's E. coli experiments, mutations produced a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Can't do much better than that.

We have addressed this, are you repeating the one where he deletes an enzyme and it came back.

They lied to you about that, too. The enzyme didn't "come back." An entirely new system had to evolve to replace the old one. It wasn't the same gene, or even the same structure. And the new one evolved a regulator as well.

In 1982, Barry Hall of the University of Rochester began a series of experiments in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase. The loss of this gene makes it impossible for the bacteria to metabolize the sugar lactose. What happened next? Under appropriate selection conditions Hall found that the bacteria evolved not only the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme (called the evolved beta-galactosidase gene, or ebg), but also a control sequence that switched the new gene on when glucose was present.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html

And this was not a new function

Yes, it was and your source admits it.

Not a big deal at all.

It just shows how random mutation and natural selection can increase fitness by evolution of complex new systems.

Barbarian observes:
You recently learned how the most important step in the evolution of microbes to animals occurred. No point in denying it. Everyone saw it.

No

Yep. Endosymbiosis was directly observed to evolve. No point in denying that, either.

Barbarian observes:
Often, it does. The Milano mutation, that protects people against arteriosclerosis, was such a case.

Actually, it is. "R" is one thing, "RR" is another, and is new information. Would you like me to show you how it's calculated?

It is a duplication.

A common source of new information. Since you declined to see the demonstration, I assume you remember from last time how it produces new information.

Nothing brand new.

As you learned, evolution never makes anything brand new. It just modifies what's there.

So you are saying all the intelligence came from accidents?

Darwin's discovery was that it wasn't accidental.

I know you believe that but sorry you should study DNA and information a little more.

Remember, even if you're upset, it's not O.K. to say things that you know aren't true.

As you learned, evolution doesn't make anything de novo. It always modifies something already there.

You have learned from the first microbe there was many things that had to come that was not there to modify.

Sounds interesting. Show us.

Barbarian observes:
All mutations add information to a population. Would you like me to show you the numbers?

(declines)

No surprise there.

Barbarian on immunity to HIV/Plague
Apparently not. About ten percent of Europeans have the modified gene, but only a tiny fraction of one percent of them have the liver disease you think is strongly associated with it. Given that bubonic plague took out one-third to one-quarter of all Europeans in the great plague, it's not surprising that natural selection would favor complete immunity to plague over such a tiny chance of developing a different disease.

The article you took that from was not addressing the mutation at hand.

Yep, it was.
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198?currentPage=all

Barbarian on increase in fitness for malaria-resistance:
It merely increases fitness in malaria areas. But the more recent mutation I showed you prevents severe malaria, while not causing sickle cell disease. The Hg-s mutation was favorable, because it increases the likelihood of surviving in areas with malaria. The Hg-c mutation is even better, because even homozgotes don't get sickle cell disorder. Good example of the way mutations are continuously mutated to better fitness.

The traits will be breed into the population and that means sickle cell will.

No. This mutation does not produce sickle-cell disease, even in homozygotes. Another increase in fitness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11713529

Barbarian observes:
There are many more complex. There are no more than 30,000 human genes. Unfortunately, because most computer programs were designed, not evolved, they lack the elegance of the human genome. But that's changing, too. Here's an early example:
http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=73

Thats because intelligence can't evolve it has to be designed by someone intelligent.

Wrong, again:
It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a
task--except in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a
small number of basic components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson,
does not know how it works. He can't ask the designer because there
wasn't one. Instead, the circuit evolved from a "primordial soup" of
silicon components guided by the principles of genetic variation and
survival of the fittest.

Barbarian observes:
God doesn't care what anyone thinks of your new doctrines. Unless you substitute them for Christianity.

Well they are not new

Invented by the Adventists in the last century.

I have shown you this.

John 5:46-47
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?


It's an indictment of you, who will not accept His word in Genesis.

Barbarian suggests:
You asked for a mutation to show this is possible. I showed you the most important step in the evolution of eukaryotes from microbes. And now you've repeatedly denied what everyone here can see is true.

If you don't think that's enough, give me any step in common descent, and I'll see what we can do to show you how that evolved.

But since you've repeatedly declined to do it, I don't think you're going to answer.

(declines the challenge)

No surprise there.

BTW the Bible says the only way to please God is with faith.

If you had enough faith, you'd accept His word in Genesis.