Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum evolutionISM

In another thread Soilguy said the following

His claim is that evolution is not a religion.....I beg to differ.

Read on.

EVOLUTION ISM
EvolutionISM is a religion....the preachers are guys such as Gould, Darwin...Bill Nye the Science guy, etc.

They fervently follows the beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of the above preachers.

Then there are little evongelist such as the false prophest who post on this forum....claiming EVOLUTIONISM IS TRUE....as they thump their text books...

The evo-scientist always looking for a hand out...offering, can you say grant?
Even your donations to the religion of EvolutionISM are often tax deductable.

Sure the preachers of evolutionISM may not have a stained glass windowed buildings...but they do have lecture halls where the deceived come to hear the latest and get their ears tickled.
The evos use these institutionalized system to ground themselves in such belief and worship of mans fallible science.
In these institutionalized system children are force fed this religion....shunned if they disagree.

The Christians uses the book of Genesis from the Word of God to help us understand our Godly origins while the disciples of evolutionISM try to force fit fossils fragments into some gapped filled so-called evolutionary linage.

Christianity says we need salvation...we are all sinners and need the blood of Jesus Christ to wash us white as snow...while the typical evolutionISM believer says there is no sin, no price to pay....no need for salvation. Their claim is man is the measure of all means. Can you say Humanism?

Of course there are different denominations of evolutionISM, considering they all don't believe the same thing. Some are gradual, some are punctuated. Some claim birds are dinos while some preach, no way!. Some followers of organized religious denominational evolutionISM allow god as a creator.
Some of the different sects of evolutionISM have man continuing to evolve and achieving the Omega Point......tell me that's not religion.

Christianity has miracles, evolutionISM has the need for magical mutations.
The evos belief is in reverence for the power of natural selection and other powers regarded as a creation force that governs the universe.

EvolutionISM is truly an ISM theory. It has NEVER been witnesses, predicted or repeated in a lab. There are no examples of morphological mutations.

Most of the followers of evolutionism are fervent in their faith...the way the evos act here easily proves that point.
They follow their cause, their principle, and pursue their activities with zeal and conscientious devotion.

EvolutionISM is indeed a religion.

Mutations are not magical. Scientists can observe and study them. We can even model them.

You mockingly refer to studying the issue as "thump[ing] textbooks."

The issue is there woudn't be an issue, if you weren't talking out your backside.

You pretend that because your only recourse is to repeat brainless blather, that that's all anyone else can do. Don't be lazy. Do your homework. Learn about the thing you hate.

Criticize it all you wish, but make your criticisms count. Make them real and not imaginary.

Or you can continue to excrete your pearls of distilled stupidity into long-winded, nonsensical, nugatory tirades.

Way to be theFallibleFiend...use ad-homs as a scientific reply.

Random mutations need to be magical if they are to add up over time and increase the fitness of an animal..

Sheeze, the human has 3.2 BILLION base pairs....If each base pair was 1 mile wide they would all strech to the X-planet Pluto.

Now that a lot of places for a rare beneficial mutation to occur...then when you realize that very few would be beneficial..and all of them are random..then they must be magical if they ever effect just the right basepair so as to add to the last rare, random beneficial mutation.

So theFallibleFiend, I have done my homework. I have learned that the religion of evolutionISM fails.

Or can you show us how they do add up over time? Instead of thumping your textbook, open it up and see if it tells you how evolutionISM really works. I bet it doesn't. I looked.

Well isn't this amusing. The person who initiates ad hominem is whining that it is being directed at him. Not so much amusing as predictable. It's doubtful you even know what an ad hominem argument is.

"Random mutations need to be magical if they are to add up over time and increase the fitness of an animal."

No. They don't. If you had done an honest day's homework on the subject, you would know that.

"Sheeze, the human has 3.2 BILLION base pairs....If each base pair was 1 mile wide they would all strech to the X-planet Pluto."
Irrelevant.

"Now that a lot of places for a rare beneficial mutation to occur...then when you realize that very few would be beneficial..and all of them are random..then they must be magical if they ever effect just the right basepair so as to add to the last rare, random beneficial mutation."
No. They don't have to be magical. A thing is not magical just because an intellectually lazy person stuffs his fingers in his ears and sneers 'nyah nyah nyah, you can't tell ME anything!'

"So theFallibleFiend, I have done my homework. I have learned that the religion of evolutionISM fails."
No. You have not. And your recent spate of nonsense confirms it.


"Or can you show us how they do add up over time? Instead of thumping your textbook, open it up and see if it tells you how evolutionISM really works. I bet it doesn't. I looked."
I don't need to thump my textbook. You haven't looked at anything and it's only self-delusion that allows you to believe you have. How do grains of sand add up over time? How do the waters in a river add up over time?

Do some honest homework. You don't need to blather nonsense.

tri, how does a few rain drops make the mississippi? its the same way with evolution. it does not require you to beleive anything. All it takes is an open mind, which yours never has been.

Trilobyte, let me know when you want to carry on an honest conversation.

soilguy, instead of being arrogant like TheFallibleFiend,,,why don't you answer my questions?

I'm trying to have a honest conversation and learn how mutations add up..but you evo's keep refusing to answer me...so, I have to ask, when do YOU want to have an honest conversation? When will YOU answer the question?

Referring to "evos" does not equate to "trying to have an honest conversation."

Asking idiotic "questions" that are effectively false assertions about what evolution is and how it works does not equate to "trying to have an honest conversation."

YOU are unjustifiably arrogant. You are arrogant with nothing to back it up. Do your homework. Quit lying to yourself. Quit being lazy.

weve told you. its the same way water drops add up to the mississippi river. a little at a time for a long time. If they dont help the "mutation" go in a good directions, they either get lost due to death of the unborn animal (or unsprouted plant), or it hinders the life of the living thing, or it moves the line its in back towards the parent line.

Its easiest to envision it like a tree. The tree limps need to have the highest limps to reach the sun. Some of the mutations push the change like the branches moveing upwards. on the other hand, some of them are like the ones that move the branches towards the side. Some are even like the ones that move towards the ground. a few branches even turn back towards the trunk. in moving towards a single change in the DNA, there might be literally thousands of mutations, none of them very big. Only a few every get to the point of making a major change that lives. Its not magic. its not every single change being for the better. Its not even that everything works for the best. There are lots of things in the human body that could be alot better. If someone or something was controling the mutation, they did a terrible job of creating the purfact (spelling intended) body.

How do mutations add up??? Are you serious???

I have no intention of serving up a remedial course in biology for you, which you will need in order to discuss this subject. There are many books, many schools and even websites that can give you the information you seek. But you'll actually have to spend time reading, absorbing and learning. I suspect that is not your inclination or intent for being here. You've picked up your biological *information* from creationist sources and assume you are armed for battle with the infidel.

If you DO have some knowledge of biology, why would you ask how mutations can add up? How could they NOT add up?

dehammer posted:
weve told you. its the same way water drops add up to the mississippi river.

Evolutionism is nothing like that. If you add the water to any place in the Mississippi the river will "grow".
This is not true for evolutionism. A mutation to the tail will not effect the nose...agreed?

a little at a time for a long time. If they dont help the "mutation" go in a good directions, they either get lost due to death of the unborn animal (or unsprouted plant), or it hinders the life of the living thing, or it moves the line its in back towards the parent line.

OK, so what allows a mutation to occur in just the right place and "go in a good direction"?
I don't see this happening over and over again untill a new body part, organ or appendage is formed.

The required multiple RANDOM beneficial mutation occurring in just the right place seem to defy the odds.

Its easiest to envision it like a tree. The tree limps need to have the highest limps to reach the sun. Some of the mutations push the change like the branches moveing upwards.

How many is "some of the mutations"?
What makes you think that a RANDOM mutation will occur again and again in just the right spot to allow the branch to move upwards?

Arn't you assuming this will occur?

on the other hand, some of them are like the ones that move the branches towards the side. Some are even like the ones that move towards the ground. a few branches even turn back towards the trunk. in moving towards a single change in the DNA, there might be literally thousands of mutations, none of them very big.

So how do thousands of mutations just so happen to occur in just the right place to do what you claim they do? This you need to answer. Otherwise your theory is based on faith...religion.

Only a few every get to the point of making a major change that lives. Its not magic. its not every single change being for the better. Its not even that everything works for the best. There are lots of things in the human body that could be alot better. If someone or something was controling the mutation, they did a terrible job of creating the purfact (spelling intended) body.

Please explain my objections instead of assuming they occur.

soilguy posted:
How do mutations add up??? Are you serious???

I have no intention of serving up a remedial course in biology for you, which you will need in order to discuss this subject. There are many books, many schools and even websites that can give you the information you seek.

[b]Yes I am serious.
In fact I have searched through several books and many websites and have not discovered the answer.
The typical web site and book ...like you...assumes they happen and can add up....BUT, I have never seen an explaination how they do.

You act as if you know...so please do tell us. (That is if you really do know.)

soilguy also posted:
If you DO have some knowledge of biology, why would you ask how mutations can add up? How could they NOT add up?

This has been explained several times on these threads.

lets start with the odds. The human has 3.2 billion base pairs. What are the odds of another RANDOM beneficial mutation occurring in a base pair in such a fashion that it adds to the last beneficial mutation and then is added to the gene pool?

It becomes obvious real quick that you evos follow the reigion of evolutionISM.

"The required multiple RANDOM beneficial mutation occurring in just the right place seem to defy the odds."
You haven't computed the odds.

"It becomes obvious real quick that you evos follow the reigion of evolutionISM."

It is obvious that you are too lazy to do any homework on the subject. You're the 10th grade tyrant sneering that geometry is pure magic, because he hasn't done his homework.

except t here is no such thing as a religion of evolutionism. evolution is a science, not a belief.

let me explain something about odds.

lets say you want to win the lottery.

you have say 1 in 15 million chances to win. does that mean you will win. no. it means you have a chance.

now lets say that there are 50 million people playing the lottery. each of them has a 1 in 15 million chance to win. Does that mean they will all lose. no. With that many players, the odds are there will be 3 winners. there may be 1 winner. there may be 50 winners, or there may not be a winner at all. Its called chance.

now lets say that some how you can live long enough to play the game 50 million times. The odds are that you will win 3 times in your life time.

now what does this have to do with genes. simple.

how many of thoese 3.2 billion base pairs do you think could have a benificial mutations. Answer, most of them. What are the odds of the mutation being negative, much higher. If its is a negative that does not mean it is not benifical, but that it is not something that is of use at that time. With someone being born every second, that means that there are 31577600 chance for a mutation to occur every year. Do they happen in the same place? no. lets assume that the chances of any mutation occuring is 1 in a million. (1x 10 to the 9th power). the chances of it happening on any particular pair is then 3.2 x 10 to the 15th power. this means that any particular pair would mutate in about 1 x 10 to the 8 year.

On the other hand, a mutation of any pair would occur 3200 times a year on average. Now what kind of mutations would that be. mosly things like someone getting and extra foot, or extra hand, or having a neuroligical disorder that was not in his or her family. check it out on the web, and youll find these things occuring. Rare, but they happen. In fact mutations arent a 1 in a million thing. it happens a lot more often than that. There are some mutations by themself that occure in 1 in 8 million births. most mutations dont affect anything and disappear. lets say that a man has a mutation that causes his head to have a slightly different shape. If he has 1 child, the changes of him passing that gene to the child is 50/50. with two children, the chances are 75/25. Now lets change it slightly, the shape makes him look weird. now women, avoid him. the chances of him having a child is now about 1 in 10 so the chances of him having two children and passing the gene on is now only 5%.

now what is the odds of a benificial mutation. likely 1 in a thosand mutations. which means that a benificial mutation occurs something like 3 times a year. now if the mutations caused a man to be smarter, but made his head look weird, the chances are that one would not be of good to the human race.

Trilobyte, I can't imagine what you're getting at with your incredulity regarding mutations adding up. Tossing out numbers of base pairs is meaningless.

An organism is born with a mutation. That mutation does not kill the individual or prevent it from breeding. That mutation is passed to the next generation. Another mutation occurs in the next generation...

What do you envision that prevents a mutation from being passed to the next generation? What do you envision that prevents mutations from accumulating?

You've shown only that you lack understanding. You talk about billions of base pairs: so what? A base pair is not a gene, it's 1/3 of a codon. You talk about odds: what odds? You've computed no odds. And to attempt to compute odds based on numbers of base pairs means exactly what?

Do you think all mutations are the result of a point mutation, changing a single base pair? Do you think that point mutations are random? If you answered "yes" to either of those questions, you are incorrect.

The odds are ...in a human, 1 in 3.2BILLION.

Which shuts down evolutionISM

"The odds are ...in a human, 1 in 3.2BILLION."
Only if you pull a number out of your backside. I've read that 75% of statistics are made up. You're an exampla non grata.

"Which shuts down evolutionISM"
Only in the minds of those who are too intellectually dishonest to present such a ridiculous number as fact.

Trilobyte is clearly uninterested in learning anything. You seem like the typical religious fundamentalist who argues evolution without actually having a foundation of knowledge in biology. You are also argue about odds without much knowledge of statistics.

I really don't understand the mentality of people who think they can overturn what is probably THE most well-backed theory in ANY of the sciences without some basic knowledge. Not only that, but you seem to think that tens of thousands of scientists, over almost 150 years, overlooked something simple, and that you found it.

I find it rather funny how you evo-babblers continue to claim I'm not interested in learning anything...but whan i ask you evo-babblers a question...you run and hide.

Seems like you evo-babblers would rather hide behind your fantasy rather than explain it.

So once again..I want to learn...show me how random mutations add up over time to form a new body part, organ or appendage.

There has been no hiding. You are not asking questions. You initiate your insulting blather and then whine when you are treated as you deserve. What you want is the privilege of being obnoxious with impunity.

No, you don't want to learn. You want to blather and pretend like you're thinking.

youve been given the answers, yet you refuse to accept them, rather choise to run and hide with supieroir than thou atitude and claim no one gives you answers. If you would look, you would see the answers. instead you choise close your eyes to them and to claim no one gives them.

Trilobyte, it seems the thing you don't understand about evolution is that it is actually a complex blend of inbreeding and hybrid vigour.

We know from Dairy cattle that most mutations on the DNA are harmful and they lead to recessive genes. I'll work on finding a site. But BLAD is the first one I think of. It causes deformities in calves with a double recessive and they die some months before they're born. Not an advantage for either the calf or the farmer. Scientists have even worked out which bull spread BLAD around the world. Selection acts on these mutations. But selection doesn't act on the DNA or the genes. It can only act on individuals the express the gene.


To get a double recessive gene you normally have to have inbreeding within an isolated population. Genes advantageous to the species as a whole therefore usually first appear in isolated populations. Their spread into the wider population can be aided by hybrid vigour as the gene spreads through a hybrid zone. The postinf Out of Asia not Africa shows this process was inportant during the development of Homo erectus. Presumably it's still important for our evolution.

Hope this explanation is simple enough.

The question is not how a mutation can occur, be presented as beneficial, then spread into a population.....but, rather, once this has occurred..how can a second beneficial mutation occur in just the right spot as to add to the last beneficial mutation that happened generations ago?

How does it beat the odds?

A simple claim that it does is not an answer.

most likely it will not occur in the next generation. the next mutation will not likely occur in the same spot. the next one that is in that spot will likely not be benifical and will be lost.

many of the mutations actually occur not just because of something happening in the genes, but because of something in the enviroment causing it. lets take an example of the rabbit. it has been a long long time with lots of snow, over time those rabbits have had to have white fur. now the glacers are melting and the ground is not so white. The white fur stands out. Along comes a rabbit with a mutation that causes his fur to turn to brown during the summer. he survives and eats will and grow strong, while his nest mates are all eaten. He is able to pass on the brown/white gene. Years later, the snow stops coming in the winter, but the bunnies keep turning white. once again they are at risk. Along comes another mutation that stops the color changes. again the one that has them is able to survive and his children do very well.

this is evolution. The planet changes, so life must change to adapt or it dies. Mutations are a constant thing. most of the mutations are not of benifit most of the time so are lost in a few generations. A bunny that had brown fur during the ice age would not have survived to pass on his gene: a bunny that had all white fur when there was no ice would not have survived. both were benifical, but only during the correct enviromental situations.

WILL YOU EVOS STOP IT WITH THE SINGLE MUTATION THEORY.

You guys do realize that it takes many, many mutations to occur again and again in just the right spot to form a new body part, appendage or organ.

NOW STOP DANCING AROUND THE ISSUE.

How do all of those required RANDOM beneficial mutation happen in just the right place?

Do you evos even have a clue as to what you believe?

Then again you were force fed this junk in school and know no better.

De Hammer posted:

Just like that De hammer? Along comes a mutation?????

And then I suppose another mutation...just so happened to come along and changed the fur even browner....followed by yet another mutation that that also just so happens to come along.


What a messed up theory....It's based on speculation and assumptions.

You claim these mutations happen but can't support your theory.

Your poor theory need fantasy statements like the one above..."Along comes a rabbit with a mutation"...that ___________________(fill in the blank).


...I hear the evo-wheels spinning in the mud.

"What a messed up theory....It's based on speculation and assumptions."

Fortunately, the people whose opinions count have actually done some homework on the subject. Astonishingly they disagree with you.

The theory is based on observation, testing, meticulous documentation.

"You claim these mutations happen but can't support your theory."

Actual practicing scientists make those claims and they have written their experiments and conclusions up in scientific journals - the journals you consider yourself too intelligent to read.

You are a waste of breath. You are intellectually lazy. You lie. And you are an intellectual coward.

Hey TheFallibleFiend,
Do me a favor...either put up or SHUT UP.

perhaps the evidence that they existed at all in conditions that the brown rabbit could not survive because its too easy to spot, then a while later, they exist in conditions that white rabbits could not has something to do with the theory.

please explain how can a rabbit exist both in a very white envirenment and a very dark one both, yet have the same basic gene structure. there is more than enough evidence that they both existed, and that one was the decendant of the other. there is also evidence from people that lived during that time that they were white, then later that they were brown.

as i said mutations are a lot more frequent that you are willing to accept. Just because the dont show up in humans as often as you think they would, does not mean they arent there. heres one example. during the first century ad, the average higth for men was 5'5" feet tall. now its 5'10 and climbing. That might not seem like much, but then you have people that are over 7 foot tall. There is no record of people in the middle ages even being that tall. Not to mention that that is only 2000 years. There was a time out ancestors woere only 3 foot tall or there about. There has been a constant increase in higth. How does it occur? mutations.

why dont you do us a favor and read what we are telling you, and either find a way of actually refuting it (other than by ignoring it or simply saying its not there) or shutting up yourself.

"Hey TheFallibleFiend,
Do me a favor...either put up or SHUT UP."

I've already put up. You are too lazy to read.

refence for BLAD for those interested in adding to their understanding of evolution:

http://www.immgen.com/Services/Traits/BLAD.html

dehammer
Why do we have redhaeds and blonds?:

dehammer also said:
Do you have a reference that increased heigth is caused by "MUTATIONS"????

You claimed it, now can you prove your claim....or did you claim it because you thought it sounded good?

I'm devoutly agnostic, I neither know nor care.

This weeks new scientist seems to be backing evolution again with the discovery of a missing link in the fish to land part of the story, hundreds of millions of years ago.
Fish with necks, whatever next?

Hight it caused by genes. that is well known. im sure if you take the time to search you will find what your looking for. The very fact that a few centuries ago no one was as tall as 7 foot, yet now we have several is proof enough that the genes are changing. That means a small mutations must be occuring.

the evidence of our first ancestors to walk upright, indicated that they were about three feet tall. how does one race get from three feet tall to 7 feet unless genes change.

Trilobyte, you asked:

Why do we have redhaeds and blonds?: (whatever a redhaed is, is it Norwegian?)

What is your answer?

My question:

If all people on earth are descended from just one couple, either Adam and Eve or Noah and his wife, why do we observe regional variations? Surely some form of evolution is the only answer.

If the bible is correct and noah's family was the only survivors of the flood, and it occured less than 4000 years ago, then how did native americans get here 20000 years ago and why do they look so much different than Noah who was middle eastener. how did the chineese get so different. how did so many different genes come from one family?

I feel that redheads and blondes have neanderthal traits

Trilobyte.

As a Christian who accepts evolution, I find your posts here to be painful. How much do you actually understand about evolution? It would seem little. You should learn more about it before you come here using unhelpful and provocative terms such as 'you Evos'. This just indicates a level of immaturity.

Answer me this question: 'Does your problem with evolution extend from your Christianity and an insecurity that if we take away 'miraculous creation' then it leaves our faith a little frail? Or do you really have scientific knowledge that evolution cannot work? If it is the former then you are simply being intellectually dishonest and need to work on having a more secure and mature faith, and spend less time baiting people on a science site.

If it is the latter then you need to make a coherent argument instead of coming here shouting at people to 'prove it works'. Why expect them to do all the work when you obviously haven't done enough yourself.

Blacknad.

It is very surprising how you guys cling on to minor details, and little catchphrases that might have been spoken to the people by scientists in order to make them UNDERSTAND in an EASIER WAY what the heck they were saying.

It is beyond doubt to anyone the dichotomy o today's culture: it has more sources of information, more possibilities of getting informed, yet it produces increasingly ignorant (not necessarily stupid, but ignorant) people. In this respect, it is an absolute necessity for scientists to explain their point of views by reducing them to such a simple form that it doesn't seem pure miracle to most. The fact that most people don't understand certain laws or phenomena even put in this way is, unfortunately, certain. I am referring, by this, to the term "random mutation", of course.

Coming back to our topic: Creationism cannot be considered a religion according to the definition of "religion": put shortly, a belief or a system of beliefs in a supernatural power. Regardless of practices, you cannot call it a religion. A cult, maybe, but not a religion.

What trilobyte needs to understand is that mutations do not necessarily occur "randomly". They are influenced by many factors. Even a grown-up body can have a mutation in all the cells. There is a trigger and a mechanism for that to happen, yet we do not fully understand it for the time being.

As for mutation causing all sort of interesting effects, read any book on biology, the chapter related to syndromes... and to give you an example of situation in which mutation causes extreme height, refer to "gigantism", same chapter of the book.

dehammer: "If the bible is correct and noah's family was the only survivors of the flood, and it occured less than 4000 years ago, then how did native americans get here 20000 years ago and why do they look so much different than Noah who was middle eastener. how did the chineese get so different. how did so many different genes come from one family?"

Even more interestingly: how the heck did humans end up on Easter Island, right in the middle of the darned Pacific Ocean, since it was until the 16th Century that Europeans had boats capable enough of arriving there? 4000 years is awfully short

Andist. Quote:

I feel that redheads and blondes have neanderthal traits

Thanks. I've been arguing exactly that on the Out of Asia post.

In what way do redheads and blondes have "neandertal traits?"

This is a topic which I've never come across, but I must admit I'm curious... perhaps you could give an example ... ?

Rigor O'Mortis,
Once again another evo side steps the issue...Just how do the mutations..RANDOM or not add up over time?

What is your explaination?

Why are you evo silent on this topic?

To Blacknad,
Will you provide an answer as to how RANDOM mutations add up over time?

Instead of you silly evos making the claim that I don't "understand" evolutionism....why don't you post the answer?

Could it be that even you evos don't understand your own theory? Hmmmmmmm

It's been explained numerous times, troll-obyte. you don't read well.

Could it be that you don't understand evolution any better than you do statistics?

Soilguy. Several sites re. Neanderthals? skin and hair colour:

http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200003/0254.html

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

http://www.aulis.com/news12.htm

A site from an amateur but his comments seem reasonable:

http://unauthorised.org/anthropology/sci.anthropology.paleo/march-1995/0090.html

I?m sure that?s enough for now. The idea that blond hair developed rapidly in Northern Europe as a result of sexual selection probably tells us more about the sexual desires of the scientist making the claim than it does about Neanderthal hair colour. I think it was on the Out of Asia post where I mentioned that Neanderthals lived in Europe for 200,000 years and they would certainly not be the only creature in the region to change from white to brown with the seasons.

Trilobite (I'll spell it that way because your reasoning seems to be as ancient as your namesake and, like them, should be extinct) do you still really not see that you don't need a whole series of magic mutations for a species to change it's appearance over many generations?

LO! I see you are at war,and such is the state of mind that tends to perpetuate confusion,which is in itself an insatiable need to find one's own centre.Life would be meaningless without emotions such as confusion,mystery,love,and all that often makes man delirious,but one can avoid such ravings by being a 'LOGICAL EPIRICIST'.However,we cannot all be wise and virtuous because we wouldnt have beautiful words like fools,villains,knaves,etc.I agree with Einstein when he says all religions are based on mystery,because it seems evident that even science is a product of man's curiosity and the knowledge of the existence of reason behind everything,which is therefore a religion too.SO never seize to be religious men!

I think it's more likely that YOU don't understand the theory, or biology in general.

1. Why do you think mutations must occur within close proximity of each other on a chromosome, in order for them to affect each other? (They don't.)

2. Why do you think mutations occur at random, with equal probability throughout a genome? (It is well known that they DO NOT. There are "hot spots" with high mutation rates on genomes, as well as parts where mutations are rare.)

3. Why are you only considering point mutations of individual base pairs? Other types of mutation also exist, and are often far more profound.

And finally, why do YOU keep ducking the questions about how YOU imagine evolution works? I've asked that several times and you ignore it. The reason I ask is that the only way I see of clearing up any misconception you have is to hear what YOU envision.

So far, my guess is that you know very little, don't envision anything, and just pick up the fabulous arguments against evolution from creationist sources. These sources rely on the notion that their readers are ignorant of evolution in particular, and biology in general.

Terryt:

What about mtDNA studies? This one seems to indicate that any common ancestor with Homo sapiens was around 250,000 years ago (pre-Homo sapiens):

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/4/1077

Great answer Soilguy...HOT SPOTS.
How many harmfull mutations will occur in this hot spot before a beneficial mutation just so happens to come along?

Thanks for that Soilguy. However we know from other species that mtDNA doesn't necessarily reflect nuclear DNA. There is a relevant site by Bradley et. al. on African, European and Indian cattle but SAGG site won't accept the reference I have. I'll try to find it somewhere else.

In the Out of Asia posting I put in a reference to Y-chromosomes of American indians. In it Karafet writes "each gene has its own evolutionary history" The original Out of Asia posting gives examples of human genes that show ancient regional ancestry. This shows there have been regional contributions to the human genome long before the "Out of Africa" migration. These contributions probably include Neanderthal as well as Southeast Asian Homo erectus and Pekin Man.

Trilobite, you still haven't answered our questions.

From Dehammer: "If the bible is correct and noah's family was the only survivors of the flood, and it occured less than 4000 years ago, then how did native americans get here 20000 years ago and why do they look so much different than Noah who was middle eastener. how did the Chinese get so different. how did so many different genes come from one family?"

My one: "If all people on earth are descended from just one couple, either Adam and Eve or Noah and his wife, why do we observe regional variations? Surely some form of evolution is the only answer."

Blacknad's: "Does your problem with evolution extend from your Christianity and an insecurity that if we take away 'miraculous creation' then it leaves our faith a little frail? Or do you really have scientific knowledge that evolution cannot work?"

Sorry to introduce a fact into this discussion, trilo. The probabilities you have been trying to introduce are false, even if a mutation HAD to occur in close proximity to another, on the genome, in order to affect another.

terrytnewzealand asked....why do they look so much different than Noah ?

Would you be so kind as to post a picture of Noah so we can see the diffferences?

terrytnewzealand posted;
"If all people on earth are descended from just one couple, either Adam and Eve or Noah and his wife, why do we observe regional variations?

You do realize that Noah had 3 sons each who had a wife...with an unknown genetic make up.

There is no reason why the differences seen in us humans is nothing more than genetic differences....not caused by mutations...

But, then again if mutations are involved and man is evolving in several different directions, which race is the most primitive?

Trilobyte, Your comment:

"But, then again if mutations are involved and man is evolving in several different directions, which race is the most primitive?"

Who said anything about "evolution" being the same as "progress"? That's making the same assumptions that people made during the Industrial Revolution. They used to assume the ultimate in progress was European man. Do you still have this idea? Evolution is simply adaptation to the environment. Races are just a result of different adaptations forced on humans through living in different regions of ther earth.

Anyway as far as I know Adam and Eve's sons didn't have three wives so your problem remains.

I'll explain again how evolution works:

All religions are the result of much interbreeding of beliefs and selection or survival of the fittest. In fact they usually rapidly break up to form subspecies. Christianity has formed such subspecies as Orthodox, Catholic, Episcopalian, Jehovah's Witness, Anglican, Prebyterian, Baptist etc. Several subspecies such as Gnostics, Albigenses, Arians, etc. have even become extinct.

Christianity evolved from a mixture of Hebrew beliefs along with Egyptian and Greek ideas. We know Hebrew beliefs were already a hybrid because the Old Testament uses the Canaanite words "El" and plural "Elohim" for God and Gods as well as the Midianite "Yaweh".

Canaanite beliefs had evolved from a hybrid of Egyptian and Mesopotamian ideas. Zoroastrian beliefs from Persia also had a huge influence on Hebrew ideas as did Indo-European ideas transmitted by the Hittites and the Hyksos.

I hope this helps your understanding of evolution.

My post above mentioned Noah. Not Adam.

Correct Trilobyte. I was merely pointing out that yet again you are failing to answer any questions members of SAGG are asking.

You wrote: "There is no reason why the differences seen in us humans is nothing more than genetic differences....not caused by mutations..."

If we are all descended from Adam and Eve it is only possible to have two variations of each gene. We know the human population has many variations of many genes. How do "genetic differences" arise if not through mutation?

No, it doesn't tell is much of anything about nuclear DNA, but it places doubt on the idea that Neandertals and Homo sapiens could cross and have viable offspring if no Neandertal mtDNA can be found in today's human population.

Given that, what other possibilities might exist that could explain similarities between some Homo sapiens genes and Neandertal genes?

Trilobyte:

So far, you haven't even been able to properly verbalize your argument, but, as far as I can tell, it is this:

A. There are a billion or so base pairs in the human genome, so the chances of any single base pair being changed through mutation is 1/1,000,000,000 (about).

B. In order for mutations to accumulate, those mutations must be in close proximity to each other. The probability of this is small (around 1/1,000,000,000).

You've been told that BOTH of your assumptions are wrong:

a. The chance of mutation in any particular base pair DOES NOT EQUAL the chance in another. Some parts of the genome have high rates of mutation, while others have very low rates.

b. Why would one mutation have to be in close physical proximity to another in order for accumulation to occur? Why would they need to be in close proximity in order for them to affect each other? And, of course, why are you only considering point mutation of base pairs when several other types of mutation, affecting larger numbers of base pairs, are well known?

Given that you heard this from several of us already, why do you still claim that no one is willing to answer your questions?

Are all the differences in dog breeds due to mutations?

soilguy posted:
b. Why would one mutation have to be in close physical proximity to another in order for accumulation to occur? Why would they need to be in close proximity in order for them to affect each other? And, of course, why are you only considering point mutation of base pairs when several other types of mutation, affecting larger numbers of base pairs, are well known?

This is your strawman argument.

I never said close physical proximity to another. What I said is that a mutation must effect the same trait.

Once again the odds say no way for evolution.....or will you mathematically show otherwise?

"Once again the odds say no way for evolution.....or will you mathematically show otherwise?"

You haven't computed the odds correctly and so have no basis for asserting that other than wishful thinking. Evolution violates no known physical or statistical law. I'm not claiming (at this point) that evolution is proved by mathematics. I'm saying that it doesn't violate any known law. If you think it does, then it's up to you to prove it does.

.....soooooooo, you say i haven't compued the odds correctly???/

Then why don't you post the correct way.

Of course once you try to figure out the odds, you'll realize that you will need to become a creationist.

BTW, where is the law that says extremely rare beneficial mutations can add up?

trilobyte. You asked:

"Are all the differences in dog breeds due to mutations?"

YES. What else would they be?

Soilguy. You must accept that Neanderthals shared most of their genes with us otherwise they wouldn't have looked remotely like us. The only disagreement between scientists is whether some of their genes survive in the modern human population.

But once you accept they do you can immediately understand every aspect of our evolution. In fact you can understand how all species evolve along with the evolution of many other things.

".....soooooooo, you say i haven't compued the odds correctly?"

Yes. I do.

"Then why don't you post the correct way."

Because I don't know the correct way. I'm not sure anyone knows at this point. Sometimes in science the correct answer is "I don't know."

"Of course once you try to figure out the odds, you'll realize that you will need to become a creationist."
Lots of people know lots of stupid and false things. You don't know what the odds are - you only know what you feel in your gut.

"BTW, where is the law that says extremely rare beneficial mutations can add up?"
There is no mathematical law that says this. There is, however, a mechanism for doing this and it's called natural selection. There are a few good books that explain this process very well.

If you understood natural selection, you would realize that your question should be, "By what mechanism could beneficial mutations not accumulate?"

TFF,

I appreciate your calm, patient posts on this when you are obviously being sorely tested by trolls. You do the 'NASTY EVOS' credit

Blacknad.

Dear Blacknad,
You must not have seen my other posts where I was less than gentlemanly. I regret it, but I have a dilemma. Something inside of me can't let a lie stand and yet I have the opportunity now of doing actual research - not just doing other people's research, but my own actual research - but I waste my time arguing with guys like trilobyte when I could be reading articles.

TFF,
Thank you for taking the time to argue with guys like trilobyte. It's hard to leave ignorance unchalllenged, but I'm in no position to rebutt these spurious arguments. I appreciate you taking the time and making the effort.

Amaranth

I second that. The same goes for Soilguy and TerryT.

Blacknad.

Yes, but we also share a lot of our genes with chimps and other primates, not to mention the *lower* animals.

What I'm saying is this: mtDNA evidence that we have today indicates that the last common female ancestor of both modern humans and neandertals lived somewhere around 800,000 years ago. (I got this from Olsen's Mapping Human History, which came out about 5 or 6 years ago.) If further evidence confirms this, the last common female ancestor lived before either species came into existence.

This is not the final word on the matter, because when the book was written, only a few mtDNA analyses on Neandertal remains were done. The researchers assumed that the two species mated, since some modern human males will have sex with just about anything. A species that looked an awful lot like us would certainly be a candidate for attempted matings. So there is some good evidence that matings did not produce viable offspring.

mtDNA evidence is not proof that modern humans and Neandertals didn't cross and have viable, fertile offspring, but it's certainly evidence that casts doubt on the idea.

In the case of red hair + fair skin, could the traits have arisen first in a common ancestor? Could the traits have arisen independently in each species?

This is NOT a straw argument, and not an argument of my making. YOU made this argument, not me.

You've made assumptions regarding the probability of mutations without any facts. You assume the chances for a mutation to occur anywhere on the genome is equal. It's not.

The mutation rates for parts of the human genome ARE known, but you'd have to do a lit review in a good university library to find them. Then, with a good statistician, maybe you can come up with actual probabilities.

You haven't falsified evolution based on your made up probabilities. Even if you come up with more realistic probabilities, what do they really tell you? Can I say to the winner of a lottery that they couldn't have won, because the odds are against it? That's essentially what you're doing.

While you have your calculator out, what's the probability that Genesis is literally true?

The mutation rates for parts of the human genome ARE known,
reference please...or retract. statement

The mutation rates for parts of the human genome ARE known,
reference please...or retract. statement

100% :-)

we know that there are *hotspots,* that rates are not the same at all loci; mutation rates are not known specifically or precisely but rather generally (and they vary for individuals)

they are assumed based on a fair amount of observation (in the present)...

to then use those assumptions and compound the assumptions by assuming that we can automatically extrapolate those rates to the past (uniformitarianism) puts us a far cry from anything approaching certainty...or even solid

The problem with these so-called "hot spots" is that they are not only hot to beneficial mutations.

Considering that almost if not all mutations that will occur in this so-called "hot spot" are harmful or neutral...they will over come any of the very infrequent, rarely occurring, beneficial mutations that may occur.

BTW: About those assumtions based on a fair amount of observation....do you have a reference?

Are you serious, trilobyte? Don't you know how to use Google?

http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Gene-Therapy-Weekly/1996-04-29/0429961260323128GW.html

http://jmg.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/39/7/e40

http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Bact370/mutasummary.html
Excerpt:

"Hot spots for point mutations can arise at sites preferred by mutagens, sites where replication/ repair enzymes frequently make errors, or sites that are poorly repaired by repair systems. As described below, large direct repeats can serve as hot spots for duplications and deletions, and certain insertion elements have site-specificity, so hot spots are not restricted to any particular type of mutation. The effect on your analysis will depend on just how frequently mutations occur at these sites, and whether or not they cause a phenotype that you are looking for."

http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/mutations/fluctuation.html
Exerpt:

"...however it is important to note that there are certain "hot spots" or "cold spots" for spontaneous mutations. (A "hot spot" is a site that has a higher rate of mutations than predicted from a normal distribution, and a "cold spot" is a site with a lower rate of mutations than predicted from a normal distribution.)"

Now stop with the infantile crap about retracting statements. Learn some biology and stop debating topics about which you know nothing.

...something that someone ignorant of biology should not bother speculating upon.

Give it up. You're not going to overturn the governing theory of biology without studying the subject. I don't understand the mentality of someone who must know he/she is uninformed, yet jumps into an argument anyway.

Show your work.

soilguys links doesn't seem to help him out of his hole very much.

The site mentioned a mutation rate of somethig like 10E-7 per cell division.

Of course this counted all mutation. What do you think the mutation rate would be just for beneficial mutations?

You demanded that I back up the fact that mutation hotspots exist. I did just that. And a mutation rate of one per million cell divisions is PLENTY.

Now go learn some basic biology. Don't jump into the deep end of the pool until you learn to swim.

No, you didn't back it up...all you did was point to a site that claimed they do.

Just because a site mentions it...doesn't make it so. You should know better than to post such a weak source as a reference.

The Journal of Medical Genetics is a weak reference?
You reject a priori any source the shows you're wrong. You prefer to make up facts and generate make-believe statistics.

You are intellectually lazy which is evidence by the facts that
You do not read carefully.
You do not reason correctly.
The logic circuits in your brain are broken.
This explains why
You do not understand mathematics.
You do not understand statistics.
You do not understand mathematics.
You have a comic-book understanding of science.

No wonder you're a creationist.

Trilobyte, you are a troll, just as others had said about you. If you're not going to accept the Journal of Medical Genetics, the University of Wisconsin and South Dakota State University as decent references, what would you accept?

Interesting...what a view the EVO-BABBLERS here have...if you don't accept their religion of evolutionism...you don't understand biology.

Of course ther funny part is their lack of understanding their own flawed theory.

Just ask them how mutations add up over time...and then watch the Mr. Bojangles soft shoe routine.

[coloe=blue]blue[/color]

Trilobyte, you make up BS math. Soilguy counters with actual information from reliable sources. You simply say you reject the work done by real scientists.

I know very well that my own understanding of evolution is imperfect. But you haven't said one thing that conveys any understanding at all of what the actual theory says. You reject a theory that you don't understand, because it disagrees with your religious preconceptions.

You think because you are too lazy and too intellectually dishonest to attempt understanding the theory that the theory is wrong. A theory is not wrong just because lazy people don't understand it.