PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     YEC population genetics
       how does that work?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It has recently been claimed by a doctorate-holding YEC expert that "Mutations build up paired with fewer alleles to select from and extinction will be the result"  of inbreeding, and further that "The same goes for inbreeding of humans. Very occasionally you might get a positive feature but mostly you’ll get a high degree of genetic mutation in the population along with an obvious decreased ability to survive."


So, the obvious and always ignored question is this:

How did the 4 breeding pairs of humans on Noah's ark - most of whom were apparently related by blood to begin with - produce the 6 billion people, of various ethnicities and "races", in just the allowed 4,500 years or so since the Flood is said to have occurred?

How did this MASSIVE inbreeding extravaganza produce the variation we see today, from the tall, thin, very dark-skinned Bantu to the short, squatty yellowish-skinned Eskimo, to the blond, fair skinned Scandinavian, to the freckled red-haired western european to the bronze-skinned black haired native American?

Please EXPLAIN how THIS happened, yet the evolution of a new species within/as part of a much larger population with an influx of variation from external populations is impossible.

Support the explanation with documentation, if possible.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:33 AM on January 25, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If i was them i would make this stupid but inescapable claim:

We used to have more than one pair of chromosomes. We were manyploids.

It's the only way out i can think of.

Does anyone know what answersingenesis says about this?

Do they dishonestly dodge the issue, like Lester?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:44 AM on January 25, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Waiting for the YEC genetics experts...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:16 PM on January 27, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 2:16 PM on January 27, 2010 :
Waiting for the YEC genetics experts...



'YEC genetics experts'  -  isn't that an oxymoron?

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:38 PM on January 27, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How did the 4 breeding pairs of humans on Noah's ark - most of whom were apparently related by blood to begin with - produce the 6 billion people, of various ethnicities and "races", in just the allowed 4,500 years or so since the Flood is said to have occurred?


The prohibition against inbreeding didn’t come in at the beginning. Obviously when you have an unpopulated earth, then you have to inbreed or not breed at all.
Luckily, the genome was originally created perfect –so there were no mutations, just a perfect functioning genome.
As time went on and the genome slowly deteriorated via mutation (or random error), the consequence of inbreeding became more likely and thus the law went out that nobody was to marry their close relatives anymore. Of course you didn’t have to listen but there would be consequences – as is the case with everything God decrees.

You only need two medium brown skinned people to produce the entire range of color available in the world population. If you go to India, some families consist of white skin to black skinned people across the whole range with the same set of parents.

So you see, it is perfectly feasible in far less than 4500 years, but then the whole range has been around for a long time.  




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:50 AM on January 28, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Luckily, the genome was originally created perfect –so there were no mutations, just a perfect functioning genome.
Something doesn't seem right here.
As time went on and the genome slowly deteriorated via mutation (or random error),
If the genome was perfect, then there would be no mutation, no error
You only need two medium brown skinned people to produce the entire range of color available in the world population. If you go to India, some families consist of white skin to black skinned people across the whole range with the same set of parents.
See, now this would be the perfect time for you to cite a web page or some sort of study to back up this assertion.

So you see, it is perfectly feasible in far less than 4500 years, but then the whole range has been around for a long time.  
No! You have posted nothing to backup the claim other than empty assertions.


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 08:09 AM on January 28, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Revised your text a bit.

Quote from JimIrvine at 08:09 AM on January 28, 2010 :
Luckily, the genome was originally created perfect –so there were no mutations, just a perfect functioning genome.
Something doesn't seem right here.
As time went on and the genome slowly deteriorated via mutation (or random error),
If the genome was perfect, then there would be no mutation, no error
You only need two medium brown skinned people to produce the entire range of color available in the world population. If you go to India, some families consist of white skin to black skinned people across the whole range with the same set of parents.
See, now this would be the perfect time for you to cite a web page or some sort of study to back up this assertion.

So you see, it is perfectly feasible in far less than 4500 years, but then the whole range has been around for a long time.  
No! You have posted nothing to backup the claim other than emptyunsupportable assertions.






-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:50 AM on January 28, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yep, definitely more accurate. Cheers


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 08:52 AM on January 28, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Jim Irvine
If the genome was perfect, then there would be no mutation, no error


Well JimIrvine, the problem is that we have disparate starting assumptions/ presuppositions.

You start with – Design in living systems is an illusion and only natural processes have ever operated in the world we see around us. That’s called philosophical naturalism –it is a belief system, a religion of materialism.

I start with –God created the world and all that is in it. He created everything perfect and when man decided to go it alone, death came as a result of their rebellion. It seems that if they went on alone and lived forever, they could have chosen to be so utterly evil that God instituted programmed cell death into his creation –it is called ‘the curse’. It appears that until that time, the creation including the genome, was perfect and from that time, it became corrupted slowly but surely. We are running down and heading for extinction not getting better and better all the time. That is a belief system called Biblical Christianity.

You only need two medium brown skinned people to produce the entire range of color available in the world population. If you go to India, some families consist of white skin to black skinned people across the whole range with the same set of parents
See, now this would be the perfect time for you to cite a web page or some sort of study to back up this assertion.

Why don’t you get yourself a pen pal in India and ask them –that should help.
No!

Yes.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:01 AM on January 28, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:50 AM on January 28, 2010 :
How did the 4 breeding pairs of humans on Noah's ark - most of whom were apparently related by blood to begin with - produce the 6 billion people, of various ethnicities and "races", in just the allowed 4,500 years or so since the Flood is said to have occurred?


The prohibition against inbreeding didn’t come in at the beginning.


I am not talking about rules, I am talking about genetics.



Obviously when you have an unpopulated earth, then you have to inbreed or not breed at all.


Right, so EXPLAIN how that happens to produce the extant variation we see while avoiding the problems you claim exist.

Luckily, the genome was originally created perfect


That is an extraordinary claim.

Can you provide even biblical support for it?

Not that such support would actually count as evidence, but if you cannot even find biblical support for a perfect genome, then it seems that you are just making this up.


–so there were no mutations, just a perfect functioning genome.


What is the evidence that there were no mutations?


As time went on and the genome slowly deteriorated via mutation (or random error),

What do you mean byu 'random error'?  And if there were no mutations, where did they suddenly come from?

the consequence of inbreeding became more likely and thus the law went out that nobody was to marry their close relatives anymore.


What consequences are those, and who made the law and why?

Of course you didn’t have to listen but there would be consequences – as is the case with everything God decrees.

Right - sick eternal punishments and all that twisted perversion that Yahweh is into.


You only need two medium brown skinned people to produce the entire range of color available in the world population.


Is that right?  Can you provide the population genetics model to support that?
Can you provide some supporting evidence?


If you go to India, some families consist of white skin to black skinned people across the whole range with the same set of parents.

Is that right?  Lets see.


So you see, it is perfectly feasible in far less than 4500 years, but then the whole range has been around for a long time.  


Sure, but there was a major bottleneck at 4,500 years.
You know what happens in bottlenecks?

Variation is LOST.

So, while it is nice that you responded, you glossed over everything, provided completely unsupported assertions, and are apparently unaware of even the consequences of what you believe actually happened.

Recall, my OP stated:

[indent]Please EXPLAIN how THIS happened, yet the evolution of a new species within/as part of a much larger population with an influx of variation from external populations is impossible.

Support the explanation with documentation, if possible.[/indent]


You did not even attempt this, you just engaged in some apologetics.

I would hope that someone withyour extensive science background that you could actually explain your position in a technical, scientific fashion.





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:07 AM on January 28, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:01 AM on January 28, 2010 :

You only need two medium brown skinned people to produce the entire range of color available in the world population. If you go to India, some families consist of white skin to black skinned people across the whole range with the same set of parents
See, now this would be the perfect time for you to cite a web page or some sort of study to back up this assertion.

Why don’t you get yourself a pen pal in India and ask them –that should help.


Don't have to, I've been there, and have many acquaintances from there.  Produce some evidence or this is just another story relegated to the YEC myth pile.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:16 AM on January 28, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:01 AM on January 28, 2010 :
Jim Irvine
If the genome was perfect, then there would be no mutation, no error


Well JimIrvine, the problem is that we have disparate starting assumptions/ presuppositions.


Right - Jim starts with the assumption that evidence should be presented when one is supposedly attempting to explain a phenomenon like this.  You just made assertions, and regardless of what your presuppositions are, if you are going to address a scientific question, answering with assertions is tantamount to admitting that you cannot explain it.

You only need two medium brown skinned people to produce the entire range of color available in the world population. If you go to India, some families consist of white skin to black skinned people across the whole range with the same set of parents
See, now this would be the perfect time for you to cite a web page or some sort of study to back up this assertion.

Why don’t you get yourself a pen pal in India and ask them –that should help.


And there we have a prime example of avoidance of su[pporting a claim.  Which likely means that it was all made up, or maybe gleaned from that moron Carl Werner's book or something...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:18 AM on January 28, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You start with – Design in living systems is an illusion and only natural processes have ever operated in the world we see around us
Actually, no, I don't. Once again, a baseless assertion made by you.
That’s called philosophical naturalism
I really don't care how 'it' is labelled.
I start with –God created the world and all that is in it. He created everything perfect and when man decided to go it alone, death came as a result of their rebellion.
For which you have presented zero evidence. baseless assertions, Yes, Evidence, No.
We are running down and heading for extinction not getting better and better all the time.
You have yet to present any evidence of this. Your baseless assertions are worth nothing.
That is a belief system called Biblical Christianity
So?

You only need two medium brown skinned people to produce the entire range of color available in the world population. If you go to India, some families consist of white skin to black skinned people across the whole range with the same set of parents



See, now this would be the perfect time for you to cite a web page or some sort of study to back up this assertion.


Why don’t you get yourself a pen pal in India and ask them –that should help.

How can you expect anybody to take you seriously when you come out with crap like this Lester? Do you expect people to just accept what you say, because you have said it?  That was truly, one of the most pathetic combination of key strokes that you have made to date. I am truly astounded that even you would come out with crap like that.


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 09:53 AM on January 28, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another thread run away from by Lester, only to spew the same sorts of gibberish all over again.

I wonder how the DSM refers to such behavior?




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:18 AM on February 3, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Looks like ol' Dioc has been busying himself skimming through Werner's book to fond some dubious quotes to do his 'arguing' with...  Must be Werner did not have a litany of quote mines dealing with how to explain, from a YEC perspective, the extant diversity of humans form 4 breeding pairs no more than 4500 years ago.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:44 PM on February 5, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Jim
Lester
So you see, it is perfectly feasible in far less than 4500 years, but then the whole range has been around for a long time.  
No! You have posted nothing to backup the claim other than empty assertions.
Yes.
.:.

Yeah, Jim, you just have to trust him. If he says he has, then he has. He wouldn't forget. He's not like us: he has pneumonics in his head.

Lester
Jim
Lester
You only need two medium brown skinned people to produce the entire range of color available in the world population. If you go to India, some families consist of white skin to black skinned people across the whole range with the same set of parents
See, now this would be the perfect time for you to cite a web page or some sort of study to back up this assertion.
Why don’t you get yourself a pen pal in India and ask them –that should help.
Yeah, and while you're at it, don't ever question Lester again. How dare you?

He's the pneumonic headed guy! He doesn't have to support his claims! YOU DO!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:38 PM on February 5, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Luckily, the genome was originally created perfect
That is an extraordinary claim.

Can you provide even biblical support for it?


In the beginning, the plan was that people weren’t supposed to die. It repeatedly says in the Bible that ‘through sin came death’. Sin is rebellion against God. Death is corruption by mutation – like programmed cell death. That’s why we die.

Don’t you think it is strange that evolution has never managed to find a mechanism (randomly and undirected, of course) to halt death?
We’re all on this earth and we all have to die. Why?



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:50 AM on February 7, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:50 AM on February 7, 2010 :


In the beginning, the plan was that people weren’t supposed to die. It repeatedly says in the Bible that ‘through sin came death’. Sin is rebellion against God. Death is corruption by mutation – like programmed cell death. That’s why we die.


Adam did not physically die the day he ate the fruit:

Genesis 2:17 (King James Version)

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


A much more biblical exegesis is that the death was spiritual, not physical.

The Bible speaks nothing of programmed cell death, you are adding to the meaning.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:51 AM on February 7, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:50 AM on February 7, 2010 :
Luckily, the genome was originally created perfect
That is an extraordinary claim.

Can you provide even biblical support for it?


In the beginning, the plan was that people weren’t supposed to die. It repeatedly says in the Bible that ‘through sin came death’. Sin is rebellion against God. Death is corruption by mutation – like programmed cell death. That’s why we die.


I'm sorry - immortality seems irrelevant to my question re: ' 'perfect' genome.

And programmed cell death is NECESSARY during embryonic development in order to form, for example, fingers.

Your ignorance of basic biology is astounding.


Don’t you think it is strange that evolution has never managed to find a mechanism (randomly and undirected, of course) to halt death?

No.
Why should it have?

What I find strange is that religion that abhors paganism was borne of it.

We’re all on this earth and we all have to die. Why?

You favorite deity tricked our ancestors into doing somethin He knew He wouldn't like and punished all humanity for it.

Isn't that the TROOOF???




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:44 AM on February 7, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Don’t you think it is strange that evolution has never managed to find a mechanism (randomly and undirected, of course) to halt death?
We’re all on this earth and we all have to die. Why?


Death is a part of life.  Without death you can't have life.  Death makes room for new life.  Simple as that.  Even stars go through a 'life cycle'.  Nothing is permanent.  

As for humans, it would be a pretty miserable world if no one died.  The population would outstrip its resources pretty quickly - then what?  We're in big enough trouble as it is with present day overpopulation.  

Again, death simply makes way for new life.  It's the young that challenge the status quo, that create change, drive innovation, and are the most creative.  They bring new energy to life.    


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:12 PM on February 7, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


And programmed cell death is NECESSARY during embryonic development in order to form, for example, fingers.

Your ignorance of basic biology is astounding.


Haha, I actually brought up something similar to this on another forum about a year ago (apoptosis wasn't something I was aware of at that time). It had to do with the necessary death of cells in order for human life to function. The answer I got was basically that cells dying isn't really death, as all life is in the blood as stated in Bible. Since cells don't have blood, they are not alive, therefore they don't die, and death wasn't a part of the garden. See, doesn't that just make so much sense!

Although creationism has started to plunge the U.S., and now the world, into a dark age fantasy, at least (like President Bush), we can get a few laughs from them every now and then.

(Edited by Fencer27 2/7/2010 at 6:58 PM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 6:57 PM on February 7, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion
Death is a part of life.  Without death you can't have life.  Death makes room for new life.  Simple as that.
I'm so very sorry to disagree with you there. But it's my understanding that it's NOT as simple as that.

The same argument could be made to say that the Sun shines because without it you can't have life.
It's the teleological approach, which ends up explaining nothing (pretty much like an intelligent designer).

Yes, we know death is good for a species. But Evolution doesn't necessarily have to achieve something that's "good" for a species.

Evolution reaches stable strategies (which sucks pretty bad oftentimes).

It would be good for all species to collaborate with members from their own species in a selfless manner.

It would be good for the entire global ecosystem to behave in the same way.

Yet that doesn't happen. It can't. For the same reason that group selection doesn't work.


Death looks quite like altruistic behavior. And altruistic behavior follows certain patterns. Very few triggers.

I can only think of three four:

1) A favor can be repaid (this works on the individual level, and i don't see how it can work at all with death).

2) A favor can help the genes of the helper, present in the genome of the helped individual (kin selection).

3) Group selection (theoretically possible, but has serious difficulties which are VERY hard to overcome).

Edit:4) Green beard effect (imagined by William D. Hamilton in 1964, picked up and named by Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene" in 1976, criticized until an example was found in 1998): Gene selection models postulate this strange but possible case that a gene (in a broad sense, it  could be made by more than one gene, as long as they go together) produces at least three effects in the phenotype: a perceivable one (visible, smellable, touchable, whatever), recognition of this trait in other individuals, and altruism towards those with the same gene.

In brewer yeast there is a green bird gene (FLO1). The three effects are merged into a single one: adherence (flocculation, clumping together).

When the FLO1 gene is expressed, FLO1+ individuals tend to adhere more easily to other FLO1+ ones in response to a toxin (such as ethanol).

It could theoretically work among individuals from different species.

Perhaps all animals had a green beard in the pacific garden of Eden. Hahahaha!





I have my own hypothesis about death. It's somewhat complicated, and it smells a bit like group selection, so i'm not very confident.

In any case, Lester thinks immortality would be a good thing, and (poor Lester) he's seriously deluded.

Besides "death" can respond to several things. Death from hunger is not the same as death from disease, and they're both very different from senescence.

It's pretty safe to conclude that our genomes don't want for us to die from hunger or disease. But senescence doesn't look accidental.

Only primitive organisms don't have it.

Lester doesn't see the evolutionary achievement that death is so, once more, his lack of understanding leaves him out of a serious discussion about how it was possible.


(Edited by wisp 2/8/2010 at 02:19 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:12 PM on February 7, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are some virtually immortal creatures around. Of course they're not truly immortal. And  i  think they're always quite simple.

Hunger (individual), famines (populations), predation and accidents take their toll. Which means that there's more selective pressure to weed out a mutation that has a detrimental effect after X time, than after X+1, which can be weeded out much more easily than a mutation that has a detrimental effect after X+15.

This is a fact. And it can explain how can dominant genetic mutations, like the one that causes Huntington's (whose onset is, on average, at age 45), can get fixed through genetic drift.

This fact weakens the effects selection upon the individual and, if i'm not terribly wrong, makes it possible for group selection to finally get a chance to do something.

The issue with group selection is that selection at the level of the individual tends to be much stronger than selection at the group level.

Yes, groups with altruistic individuals should be more successful, but this is not an evolutionarily stable strategy. A selfish individual will have so great an advantage upon its selfless groupies that it will have more offspring, which will carry the selfish mutation.
Once it appears, it will spread.

Group selection suffers internal rebellions.

An immortal individual could theoretically have more offspring, but it won't matter that much, since not many of them will live long enough to boast their genetic immortality.

Populations with aging individuals are healthier and evolve quicker (since individuals from previous generations don't stick around to dull adaptation), and produce more daughter populations. And, for once, they can beat the selfish immortal individual from spreading its filthy immortal seed.



I think...



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:54 PM on February 7, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 6:57 PM on February 7, 2010 :

And programmed cell death is NECESSARY during embryonic development in order to form, for example, fingers.

Your ignorance of basic biology is astounding.


Haha, I actually brought up something similar to this on another forum about a year ago (apoptosis wasn't something I was aware of at that time). It had to do with the necessary death of cells in order for human life to function. The answer I got was basically that cells dying isn't really death, as all life is in the blood as stated in Bible. Since cells don't have blood, they are not alive, therefore they don't die, and death wasn't a part of the garden. See, doesn't that just make so much sense!

Although creationism has started to plunge the U.S., and now the world, into a dark age fantasy, at least (like President Bush), we can get a few laughs from them every now and then.


Cells have no blood, thus cannot die..

Wow - these people will say anythign to rescue their weird death cult from the peering eyes of reality...





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:50 AM on February 8, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
You start with – Design in living systems is an illusion and only natural processes have ever operated in the world we see around us. That’s called philosophical naturalism –it is a belief system, a religion of materialism.

I start with –God created the world and all that is in it. He created everything perfect and when man decided to go it alone, death came as a result of their rebellion. It seems that if they went on alone and lived forever, they could have chosen to be so utterly evil that God instituted programmed cell death into his creation –it is called ‘the curse’. It appears that until that time, the creation including the genome, was perfect and from that time, it became corrupted slowly but surely. We are running down and heading for extinction not getting better and better all the time. That is a belief system called Biblical Christianity.
Death is a curse... OK...

What about sperms?

Within 30 min of entering the vagina over 99% of the sperm will be dead or dying.
How was it in your assumed perfect world?

What Darwin envisioned is savagely mirrored and taken to the extreme by the sperm race for the egg, which was designed by your god, according to your creed.

OR perhaps what we see now is a part of the curse.

So what is it?

If you do believe that it works now as it was intended by your god, then how could Darwin (for whom you feel contempt) catch a glimpse of your god's mind?

This whole system seems to respond to imperfection (in a perfect system only one sperm would suffice). Why would your god design this race for survival (which you see as a curse in the higher level)?

Did perfect Adam (who looks quite moronic in your interpretation of the Genesis) produce just one sperm per month? One per day? One per ejaculation?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:57 PM on February 20, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:01 AM on August 5, 2010 in the thread Louis Pasteur:
Derwood, about Pogge
One wonders why anyone would take such an obvious egomaniacal Dunning-Krugerite seriously.
Perhaps because he uses evidential support for what he asserts and thus makes far more practical sense than you do.
Sorry, what? Something about evidential support?


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:15 PM on August 10, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dude?
Quote from derwood at 08:44 AM on February 7, 2010 :
Quote from Lester10 at 06:50 AM on February 7, 2010 :
Luckily, the genome was originally created perfect
That is an extraordinary claim.

Can you provide even biblical support for it?


In the beginning, the plan was that people weren’t supposed to die. It repeatedly says in the Bible that ‘through sin came death’. Sin is rebellion against God. Death is corruption by mutation – like programmed cell death. That’s why we die.


I'm sorry - immortality seems irrelevant to my question re: ' 'perfect' genome.

And programmed cell death is NECESSARY during embryonic development in order to form, for example, fingers.

Your ignorance of basic biology is astounding.


Don’t you think it is strange that evolution has never managed to find a mechanism (randomly and undirected, of course) to halt death?

No.
Why should it have?

What I find strange is that religion that abhors paganism was borne of it.

We’re all on this earth and we all have to die. Why?

You favorite deity tricked our ancestors into doing somethin He knew He wouldn't like and punished all humanity for it.

Isn't that the TROOOF???








-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:58 AM on September 14, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:19 AM on October 24, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Luckily, the genome was originally created perfect
That is an extraordinary claim.

Can you provide even biblical support for it?
In the beginning, the plan was that people weren’t supposed to die. It repeatedly says in the Bible that ‘through sin came death’.
Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."


Is that so?


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:30 PM on October 25, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:50 AM on February 7, 2010 :
Luckily, the genome was originally created perfect
That is an extraordinary claim.

Can you provide even biblical support for it?


In the beginning, the plan was that people weren’t supposed to die. It repeatedly says in the Bible that ‘through sin came death’. Sin is rebellion against God. Death is corruption by mutation – like programmed cell death. That’s why we die.


It says that in the bible?

WHERE?

Please provide chapter and verse wherein we can read in the bible about mutation being caused by sin.  
And what sins did, say, oak trees engage in that warranted them being cursed by an all-loving creator as well?



Don’t you think it is strange that evolution has never managed to find a mechanism (randomly and undirected, of course) to halt death?


No.  Don't you think it odd that bibler worshippers have never found any evidence that the miracles in the bible were real?



We’re all on this earth and we all have to die. Why?


Because in real life, things wear out.  Proteins degrade.  Telomeres get shorter.  Oxygen damages organic compounds.  

You are foisting your complaints about your own beliefs upon something you don't believe in.





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:56 AM on October 28, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

still no legitimate reply...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:43 PM on November 11, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You can only run for so long, YECs...
Quote from derwood at 07:33 AM on January 25, 2010 :
It has recently been claimed by a doctorate-holding YEC expert that "Mutations build up paired with fewer alleles to select from and extinction will be the result"  of inbreeding, and further that "The same goes for inbreeding of humans. Very occasionally you might get a positive feature but mostly you’ll get a high degree of genetic mutation in the population along with an obvious decreased ability to survive."


So, the obvious and always ignored question is this:

How did the 4 breeding pairs of humans on Noah's ark - most of whom were apparently related by blood to begin with - produce the 6 billion people, of various ethnicities and "races", in just the allowed 4,500 years or so since the Flood is said to have occurred?

How did this MASSIVE inbreeding extravaganza produce the variation we see today, from the tall, thin, very dark-skinned Bantu to the short, squatty yellowish-skinned Eskimo, to the blond, fair skinned Scandinavian, to the freckled red-haired western european to the bronze-skinned black haired native American?

Please EXPLAIN how THIS happened, yet the evolution of a new species within/as part of a much larger population with an influx of variation from external populations is impossible.

Support the explanation with documentation, if possible.








-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:35 PM on November 17, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Any YEC?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:46 PM on November 29, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think YEC's are becming an endangered species on this board.  


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:59 PM on November 29, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sad that no YECs - even those claiming years of 'research' on the subject can offer anything more than platitudes.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:57 PM on December 14, 2010 | IP
catstye cam

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood, the account of Noah also appears in the Qur'an.
It differs from the one in the Bible in that it was only the people of Noah that God destroyed.
There is nothing that says it was a worldwide flood that destroyed  everything, and there is no time given for how long ago it happened....to us, it was a local flood ,  which means there is no probvlem.

 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 03:18 AM on December 15, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from catstye cam at 02:18 AM on December 15, 2010 :
Derwood, the account of Noah also appears in the Qur'an.
It differs from the one in the Bible in that it was only the people of Noah that God destroyed.
There is nothing that says it was a worldwide flood that destroyed  everything, and there is no time given for how long ago it happened....to us, it was a local flood ,  which means there is no probvlem.




To which I say BRAVO the Qur'an!


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:29 AM on December 17, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I still want to know how this thing works, Lester.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:19 PM on December 27, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:50 AM on January 28, 2010 :
How did the 4 breeding pairs of humans on Noah's ark - most of whom were apparently related by blood to begin with - produce the 6 billion people, of various ethnicities and "races", in just the allowed 4,500 years or so since the Flood is said to have occurred?


The prohibition against inbreeding didn’t come in at the beginning. Obviously when you have an unpopulated earth, then you have to inbreed or not breed at all.
Luckily, the genome was originally created perfect –so there were no mutations, just a perfect functioning genome.


So, you have no doubt that repairing a defective gene in the human genome would be a GOOD thing to do?  Wouldn't that return that person closer to a "perfect functioning genome'?

From the "Human Microevolution" thread:

Quote from Apoapsis at 06:39 AM on October 10, 2010 :
Another article:

Inactivation of CMP-N-acetylneuraminic acid hydroxylase occurred prior to brain expansion during human evolution

It is premature to speculate much regarding possible roles of CMAH gene inactivation in the acquisition of human-specific features. It is intriguing to note that, in all mammals studied so far (1), including the chimpanzee (4), the amount of Neu5Gc in the brain is always very low, no matter what the levels are in other organs of the body. This seems to be explained by selective down-regulation of CMAH gene expression in the mammalian brain (44). A potentially testable hypothesis is that the low levels of residual brain Neu5Gc in other mammals somehow limited brain expansion and that the human CMAH mutation released our ancestors from such a constraint. We are therefore studying the effects of Neu5Gc overexpression in the mouse brain and exploring how Neu5Gc expression might affect the biology of neural cells and molecules.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:39 PM on December 28, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.