[__ Science __ ] What We Knew About the Woodpecker

[Barbarian]

How do you know that the sets didn't have more information than they do today?

Each chromosome has one copy of each gene. That's how it works. There occasionally are multiple copies, and in animals, this usually results in the death of the animal.

The information has gotten smaller on average over time.

That assumption is incorrect. For example, Adam and Eve could have had at most, four alleles for each gene locus. Today most of them have dozens or hundreds of alleles. The rest evolved over time. Perhaps you don't know how information works in genetics. How did you measure this? Would you like to see how it's measured?

Eventually, everything will be unable to reproduce and die out just by genetic weardown. That is, if God lets that much time pass, and He doesn't end the world before then.

No, that's wrong. We see new genetic information forming constantly in populations. God created living things with the ability to do so. Would you like to learn how it happens?

Oh, and this fact is a great bulwark against belief in millions of years.

Another flimsy assumption, easily refuted by reality.

 

[Barbarian]

Creationists like YE ICR founder Henry Morris wrote about the supposed genetic inferiority of blacks and others. Again, I'm not saying that all YE creationists are racists. Many of them have rejected the racist foundations of YE creationism.

Your post would is also writing about it, so there goes that argument.

Notice I said "supposed." Calling out racists, is not racism. C'mon.

Writing about something does not inherently involve supporting or believeing something.

I'm just pointing out that Morris thought black people were intellectually and spiritually inferior. Evolutionary theory shows that Morris was wrong; there aren't any biological human races today.

I just showed you that all those new alleles evolved.

And i think i showed that you admitted otherwise.

Denial isn't going to help you. Adam and Eve, for example could only account for four (at most) of the hundreds of alleles found in many human gene loci.

What "parts" do you think bacteria sacrifice to survive antibiotic? In fact, a very common mode in the evolution of antibiotic resistance is by addition of genetic material:

From EXISTING outside sources!

In that particular case. However, new plasmids evolve also...

In 1975, a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of bacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that could digest certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate. These substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935. It was initially named as Achromobacter guttatus.[4]

Studies in 1977 revealed that the three enzymes that the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by any other bacteria, and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts.[5]
...
All three enzymes are encoded on a plasmid called pOAD2.[9] The plasmid can be transferred to E. coli, as shown in a 1983 publication.[10]

Aminocaproic acid - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or it can be by simple mutation of an existing gene...
Hemoglobin C is produced when a point mutation in the HBB gene causes amino acid substitution of glutamic acid to lysine at the 6th position of the β-globin chain of the hemoglobin.

Hemoglobin C - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So material was added to it - but it didn't make it itself (evolve) - it TOOK PRE-existing dna!!

All new mutations involve pre-existing DNA. That's how new information evolves in living things. Would you like me to show you the numbers for a simple case? BTW, you were going to define "genetic entropy" for us. What do you think it is?

How can you call a tree grabbing a branch and glueing the branch to itself with Elmer's Glue "growing" a branch??

That's called "grafting." My father did that with apple trees. You've confused grafting with evolution.

Evolution often simplifies. Humans, for example, lack cervical ribs, and have a vestigial digestive fermentation chamber.

Which of your definitions of evolution?

There's only one. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. You're confusing the phenomenon with the consequences of the phenomenon. As Darwin and YE creationists like AIG point out, this can often result in speciation and the evolution of even higher taxa.

And each new mutation adds information to the population.

This is a bold incorrect statement. Heard of "deletion mutations"?

You've confused evolution with individual variation. Evolution only happens to populations, not individuals. What you are thinking of is when an allele is eliminated from the population, which is quite different. In extreme cases, only one allele remains. This is called "fixation."

Besides, most of them are 1. silent. 2. destructive.

It's true that most mutations don't do very much of anything. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection acts on the useful and harmful ones, unless there's some kind of epistasis involved.

The ratio of useful to harmful alleles in a population is a measure of fitness for the particular environment. "Fitness" only counts in terms of environment.

Now you'll likely say, "Loss is Gain".

As I pointed out, sometimes evolution simplifies, sometimes it makes things more complex. However, your confusion is in conflating an individual genome with the population genome.

Population genomics has been of interest to scientists since Darwin. Some of the first methods used for studying genetic variability at multiple loci included gel electrophoresis and restriction enzyme mapping.[2] Previously genomics was restricted to only the study of a low amount of loci. However recent advancements in sequencing and computer storage and power have allowed for the study of hundreds of thousands of loci from populations.[3] Analysis of this data requires identification of non-neutral or outlier loci that indicate selection in that region of the genome. This will allow the researcher to remove these loci to study genome wide effects or to focus on these loci if they are of interest.

Population genomics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[KV-44-v1]

Notice that AIG now concedes the evolution of new species and [genus].

Because it's not real evolution, which is F2FE, it's watered down "Evolution".
AiG even mentioned "microevolution" but elaborated that they didn't want to call it that because it does not involve F2FE.

Concede? I think they never argued against such in the 1st place. But if they did, can you show me where?

God has given living things the capacity to evolve new species and adaptations to fit their environments.

Diversity within a kind and genes being expressed due to certain factors is only "evolution" by the allelic change and/or speciation definitions.

Please don't mix up your three definitions (and mabye more) of the term "evolution".

The problem AIG has, that all these adaptations evolved within one family of birds. All of them are woodpeckers or closely-related species. But each of them evolved their own adaptations to fit their needs. And yet, AIG is surprised by all the variation that evolved within a single family (which by their admission would be a single "kind" )

Still woodpeckers. They didn't evolve into dinosaurs. Or parrots. Or any non-woodpecker.

 

[Barbarian]

Because it's not real evolution, which is F2FE, it's watered down "Evolution".

Real evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. AIG's attempted deception is "evolution is only evolution that takes too long for anyone to document." It's very transparent.

AiG even mentioned "microevolution" but elaborated that they didn't want to call it that

They even admit macroevolution, now. Only they limit it to the evolution of new species and genera.
Macroevolution, as you should know, means speciation.

Diversity within a kind and genes being expressed due to certain factors is only "evolution" by the allelic change and/or speciation definitions.

Since it's a scientific term, we have to use the scientific definition. Your various other terms, used by creationists, are just made-up things to avoid the reality of evolution.

Having creationists tell you about evolution, is like having Kim Jong Il tell you about capitalism.

Concede? I think they never argued against such in the 1st place. But if they did, can you show me where?

Many creationists still deny the fact of speciation. Would you like some examples?

Diversity within a kind and genes being expressed due to certain factors is only "evolution" by the allelic change and/or speciation definitions.

Evolution is not defined as speciation. There are two generally accepted definitions. Darwin's "descent with modificaiton" and the more recent one, informed by genetics: "change in allele frequencies in a population."

Please don't mix up your creationist misunderstandings of the term with the scientific definition.

The problem AIG has with woodpecker evolution, that all these adaptations evolved within one family of birds. All of them are woodpeckers or closely-related species. But each of them evolved their own adaptations to fit their needs. And yet, AIG is surprised by all the variation that evolved within a single family (which by their admission would be a single "kind" )

Still woodpeckers.

Just like humans are still hominoids. Humans and chimpanzees differ by less than ivory bill woodpeckers differ from flickers.

Rock and a hard place for creationists.

They didn't evolve into dinosaurs.

Technically, they are dinosaurs. Remember here, when no one could find even one apomorphic character of birds that isn't present in dinosaurs?

Or any non-woodpecker.

Pretty much the way humans didn't evolve into any non-hominoid.

We're making some progress here...

 

[KV-44-v1]

No, that's wrong. We see new genetic information forming constantly in populations. God created living things with the ability to do so. Would you like to learn how it happens?

So you believe that life will just sustain itself forever (unless God ends it)??

You ask me about genetic entropy a lot. But you believe it's a myth.

We see new genetic information forming constantly in populations.

Where, when, source?

Creationists like YE ICR founder Henry Morris wrote about the supposed genetic inferiority of blacks and others.

You just wrote about it too.
"Writing about" something does NOT automatically mean backing or believing something. Got it?
The Bible speaks about human sin, but I doubt that you think that God wants us to sin.

racist foundations of YE creationism.

What a funny claim. YEC foundation is BIBLE not raEcism.

If what you say is true then why is it Evolution that embraces racism and not YEC???? You saw the fruits of the Evolutionist named Hitler. Sure you accept that his ideas were wrong, but his worldview was still Darwin based, NOT Bible-based.

Racism—Getting to the Heart of the Matter.

It's really not that surprising when cultures reject the Bible as their authority that they become racist. You see the whole idea of races isn’t biblical, it’s an evolutionary concept.

answersingenesis.org

Please tell me why YEC supposedly has "rasis foundations" if YEC articles' contents demolish such a belief??



“Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him” (Proverbs 30:5).

Things can only be true or false if said things are presented as fact. Am i correct? If not why not?

pointing out that Morris thought black people were intellectually and spiritually inferior.

Quote? If you quoted it, it got lost, or mabye that was in another thread.

Evolutionary theory shows that Morris was wrong; there aren't any biological human races today.

This is odd. Shouldn't "allelic change have no limits"????
Either you think it does or you think it doesn't.
This is, assuming you are using CAFPT version of "evolution".

Adam and Eve, for example could only account for four (at most) of the hundreds of alleles found in many human gene loci.

Don't see how this disproves my point, whether its true or false.

In that particular case. However, new plasmids evolve also...

In 1975, a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of bacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that could digest certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate. These substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935. It was initially named as Achromobacter guttatus.[4]

Studies in 1977 revealed that the three enzymes that the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by any other bacteria, and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts.[5]
...
All three enzymes are encoded on a plasmid called pOAD2.[9] The plasmid can be transferred to E. coli, as shown in a 1983 publication.[10]

Aminocaproic acid - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or it can be by simple mutation of an existing gene...
Hemoglobin C is produced when a point mutation in the HBB gene causes amino acid substitution of glutamic acid to lysine at the 6th position of the β-globin chain of the hemoglobin.

It's not evolution of nylon eaters, but degradation. Thought you knew.

Hmm. Not able to digest anything but nylon?? That's not creation, that's reduction.

This is Adaptation, which aint evolution.

No new taxonomic families were made. So I'll assume you are referring to CAFPT.

You may have disproved the point you were trying to make.

From EXISTING outside sources!
So material was added to it - but it didn't make it itself (evolve) - it TOOK PRE-existing dna!!
How can you call a tree grabbing a branch and glueing the branch to itself with Elmer's Glue "growing" a branch?? How can you call non-evolution evolution?

That's called "grafting." My father did that with apple trees. You've confused grafting with evolution.

I agree, you did confuse grafting and evolution.
You think genetic addition from a preexisting source is evolution. But IDK which of your 3 def's of evolution you think it is.

Evolution often simplifies. Humans, for example, lack cervical ribs, and have a vestigial digestive fermentation chamber.

EVEN IF they ever had one (to my knowledge, we have never seen a demonstrable human with those demonstrable traits) , we lost that info. Genetic degradation, NOT evolution.
Apparently you think our genes get better with time and not worse.

There's only one. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. You're confusing the phenomenon with the consequences of the phenomenon. As Darwin and YE creationists like AIG point out, this can often result in speciation and the evolution of even higher taxa.

So you admit that F2FE is not real? And that speciation is NOT evolution?

And each new mutation adds information to the population.

Only the insertion ones.
Why would subtitution ones be additions? How is mere change an addition?
Deletion mutations are deletions, don't see why you think they "add info".

 

[KV-44-v1]

Real evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. AIG's attempted deception is "evolution is only evolution that takes too long for anyone to document." It's very transparent.

Assumed deception.

They even admit macroevolution, now. Only they limit it to the evolution of new species and genera.
Macroevolution, as you should know, means speciation.

Assuming your "only one definition" claim is true, macroevolution is just MORE allelic change. xD

Your various other terms, used by creationists, are just made-up things to avoid the reality of evolution.

Language changes, get with the time or don't.

Many creationists still deny the fact of speciation. Would you like some examples?

Yes. Names?

I think those are convinced that "speciation = evolution". Since they know F2FE is false, they (unneccesarily) reject the fact of speciation.

Evolution is not defined as speciation.

I'm glad.

Please don't mix up your creationist misunderstandings of the term with the scientific definition.

I didn't mix anything, you seem to have.

So now you only think there is ONE (1) definition of evolution. Correct?

The problem AIG has with woodpecker evolution, that all these adaptations evolved within one family of birds. All of them are woodpeckers or closely-related species. But each of them evolved their own adaptations to fit their needs. And yet, AIG is surprised by all the variation that evolved within a single family (which by their admission would be a single "kind" )

The problem F2F Evo's have, is that they CANNOT demonstrate that the POTENTIAL was NOT already in the ancestors of these new woodpeckers.

Don't you think it would be easier for the ability to be there, and then be expressed later in the children, instead of it NOT being there and then "evolving"?? (evolving by the F2FE definition)

Rock and a hard place for creationists.

OE creationists, that is.

Technically, they are dinosaurs. Remember here, when no one could find even one apomorphic character of birds that isn't present in dinosaurs?

Completely incorrect.
Reptiles never were and never are birds.
By your logic, iguanas are technically birds and ostriches are technically reptiles.

Do you believe that reptiles and birds are the same kind?? Yes/no

Denial isn't what's helping you. I just showed a big necked brontosaurus (or whatever it was called) compared to a real bird, and you evaded and posted a drawing of a bird that looked like a bird, not a dino.

And showed you a big ol list.

 

[Barbarian]

No, that's wrong. We see new genetic information forming constantly in populations. God created living things with the ability to do so. Would you like to learn how it happens?

So you believe that life will just sustain itself forever (unless God ends it)??

God created life to increase information indefinitely. Since almost all species that once lived on Earth are now extinct, it's entirely possible that life on Earth will end even before the sun becomes a red giant and incinerates everything.

You ask me about genetic entropy a lot. But you believe it's a myth.

Since you seem to be unable to even tell us what it is, I'm thinking it's a myth for you. Why not show I'm wrong by telling us what it is?

It's not evolution of nylon eaters, but degradation. Thought you knew.

Change in allele frequency. Which is what evolution is.

Hmm. Not able to digest anything but nylon??

No, why would you think that. These bacteria can just digest one additional substance. They spread this by a plasmid (a small bit of DNA that is transferred between bacteria to become part of the genome), so it's an addition of information. Nothing is lost in the bacterial genome; informtion is added.

That's not creation, that's reduction.

How would an increase in information be a "reduction?"

No new taxonomic families were made.

Evolution can produce new taxa. But it doesn't have to. Remember what evolution is. Chabge in allele frequency in a population.

Assuming your "only one definition" claim is true, macroevolution is just MORE allelic change.

Yes. That's why AIG finally admitted the evolution of new taxa. It's observed to happen. Your various other terms, used by creationists, are just made-up things to avoid the reality of evolution.

Language changes

This has remained the same at least since I was an undergraduate. Creationists make up all sorts of silly stories about what evolution should be, but science remains the same in this regard.

The problem F2F Evo's have, is that they CANNOT demonstrate that the POTENTIAL was NOT already in the ancestors of these new woodpeckers.

That's why God made DNA as he did. It has the POTENTIAL to produce all sorts of new alleles as we see in the various kinds of woodpeckers. That was one of Darwin's points.

Don't you think it would be easier for the ability to be there, and then be expressed later in the children

Problem is, each woodpecker could only have 2 alleles for each gene locus. A pair would only have 4 at most. So all the rest would have had to evolve later.

Technically, they are dinosaurs. Remember here, when no one could find even one apomorphic character of birds that isn't present in dinosaurs?

Completely incorrect.

You tried, but you couldn't show me even one.

Reptiles never were and never are birds.

Birds are dinosaurs. Dinosaurs, (including birds) pterosaurs and crocodiles are archosaurs.

By your logic, iguanas are technically birds

No. Iguanas are lizards. The squamata are an entirely different branch of diapsids.

ostriches are technically reptiles

In the sense that mammals are reptiles. All amniotes evolved from reptiles.

Denial isn't what's helping you. I just showed a big necked brontosaurus (or whatever it was called) compared to a real bird,

Which is kinda like comparing a whale to a mouse, and denying that a mouse is a mammal. So I showed you a dinosaur of the group from which birds evolved. Much better fit, no?

And showed you a big ol list.

Every one of which was easily debunked. would you like me to post it again?

Maybe it would be useful.

 

[Barbarian]

I agree, you did confuse grafting and evolution.

You suggested that grafting was evolution. I showed you the differences. Want me to do it again?

You think genetic addition from a preexisting source is evolution. But IDK which of your 3 def's of evolution you think it is.

Remember evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population. So a new plasmid, added to a bacterial population is evolution. It happens to also be an increase in information, but evolution is also capable of removing information.

Evolution often simplifies. Humans, for example, lack cervical ribs, and have a vestigial digestive fermentation chamber.

Please tell me why YEC supposedly has "rasis foundations" if YEC articles' contents demolish such a belief??

Well, let's take a look at a YEC article:

Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
ICR Co-founder Henry Morris The Beginning of the World

There's only one. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. You're confusing the phenomenon with the consequences of the phenomenon. As Darwin and YE creationists like AIG point out, this can often result in speciation and the evolution of even higher taxa.

So you admit that F2FE is not real?

I'm not familiar with creationist jargon.

If what you say is true then why is it Evolution that embraces racism and not YEC????

Evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races. Hitler and Morris opposed Darwinians like Punnett who showed that their racist imaginings were without foundation.

Each new mutation adds information to the population.

Only the insertion ones.

No, that's wrong. Would you like me to show you the numbers for a simple case where a mutation just changed one gene? I think your problem is you're confusing the genome of an individual with the population genome. Genetic information is about population genomes.

Read this to get some idea of the way the numbers work:

Population genetics: past, present, and future

We present selected topics of population genetics and molecular phylogeny. As several excellent review articles have been published and generally focus on European and American scientists, here, we emphasize contributions by Japanese researchers. Our ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Why would subtitution ones be additions? How is mere change an addition?

Simple. Suppose that there are two alleles for a particular gene in a population. Suppose a mutation produces a third allele, and it survives and spreads into the population. The genetic information of the population has increased. Would you like to see some numbers showing how that works?

Deletion mutations are deletions, don't see why you think they "add info".

If a locus is deleted or brokean, that is a loss of information. But as you learned, evolution can remove as well as add information. An example is the human vitamin C gene, which we once had, but is now non-functional. Would you like to learn about that?