How mutation adds information to a population genome

[BeyondET]

4 hours ago, Heaven_Bound said:

I already explained to you Hebrew phrase tôlĕdōt (“This is the history of”)

That means Chapter 2 defines what Chapter 1 states.

 

And Chapter 2 tells us like MAN, God FORMED Animals and Birds the same way.   Therefore, God proves He did not use Evolution!

 

I keep telling you the Hebrew Version explains this in detail and you keep ignoring it.   But we have it plainly written God made Man , Beasts, Birds ALL THE SAME WAY by Forming them.   Therefore, if man is not Evolved in Creation, neither are the Animals and Birds.   They were all made by hand Form!

 

You need to learn and understand the Hebrew meaning of Hebrew phrase tôlĕdōt (“This is the history of”)

Animals can form in strange ways, like a Flat worm talk about reproduction through mutilation, why did God design such a thing. One worm cut it up into 20 pieces and each one stay alive and grow to an adult flat worm with brain and all increased info

Or the immortal jellyfish technically can live for ever. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by BeyondET

[BeyondET]

Maybe we'll have better things than blue ray tv an such. If man can figure out the info in the king mantis shrimp vision. It's a bit to advance though.

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, Heaven_Bound said:

That's fine, but you said Darwin claimed God made us in the manner of the Bible and then Evolution kicked off from that. 

No.   That's not what I said.   For one thing, evolution is no different than any other of God's natural processes.   It's not an add-on; it's just how He made things to work.

5 hours ago, Heaven_Bound said:

I am showing you that Chapter Two of Genesis is a more definitive definition to the basic outline from Genesis Chapter One. 

In fact, they are both God's word and perfect.   You just find the second to be more compliant with your ideas.

When God says that the earth brought forth animals, that's what happened.   They didn't poof out of the ground, but nature brought forth life as He made it to do.

5 hours ago, Heaven_Bound said:

You are flat out DENYING what Genesis One and Two mean.

I'm just accepting them as they are.   You're having problems with what you see as conflicts, because you aren't willing to accept them as they are.

5 hours ago, Heaven_Bound said:

Do you believe in the Big Bang? 

I'm not a physicist.   So I look at the evidence as I can.   It is certainly consistent with God's creation, and the evidence does point to a singularity, beginning.   Indeed, a priest first proposed it, and it was most vociferously attacked by an atheist, because it suggested a moment of creation.  

5 hours ago, Heaven_Bound said:

 That's the only way you can believe as such. 

What if God just said "let there be light" and the chaos gave way to an expansion of an orderly and livable universe?   I can see what an atheist like Hoyle would be offended, but a Christian?   No Christian who understood the implication would be put off by it.

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Animals can form in strange ways, like a Flat worm talk about reproduction through mutilation,

Flatworms are simple enough that like jelly fish and sponges, they can survive and grow back from a portion of the animal.    So can plants and bryozoans and most of the Earth's living things.    Metazoans are weird in that we generally can't regenerate that way.   But my daughter, when she was very young, lost the first knuckle of a finger in a door.    And it grew back, including fingernail.   She was young enough that she retained the ability to regrow a fairly complex structure.

4 hours ago, Heaven_Bound said:

First of all, how these Flat Worms or Jellyfish were created do not exemplify Evolution Process.

Well, that's an assumption that is not supported by the evidence.   Indeed, genetics and physiology shows that cnidarians (including jellyfish) are a sister taxon to other metazoans, and reflect a common ancestor that was neither.  

Cnidarian milestones in metazoan evolution

Integrative and Comparative Biology, Volume 47, Issue 5, November 2007, Pages 693–700

Abstract

Cnidarians display most of the characters considered as milestones of metazoan evolution. Whereas a tissue-level organization was probably already present in the multicellular common ancestor of all animals, the Urmetazoa, the emergence of important animal features such as bilateral symmetry, triploblasty, a polarized nervous system, sense organs (eyes, statocysts), and a (chitinous or calcium-based) continuous skeleton can be traced back before the divergence between cnidarians and bilaterians. Modularity and metamery might be also regarded as two faces of the same medal, likely involving conserved molecular mechanisms ruling animal body architectures through regional specification of iterated units. Available evidence indicates that the common ancestor of cnidarians and bilaterians, the UrEumetazoa, was a surprisingly complex animal with nerve cell differentiation. We suggest that paedomorphic events in descendants of this ancestor led to the array of diversity seen in the main extant animal phyla. The use of molecular analyses and identifying the genetic determinants of anatomical organizations can provide an integrative test of hypotheses of homologies and independent evidence of the evolutionary relationships among extant taxa.

The real advance in life on Earth was the evolution of the eukaryote cell, almost certainly by endosymbiotic processes.    That made everything else possible.

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by The Barbarian

[BeyondET]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Flatworms are simple enough that like jelly fish and sponges, they can survive and grow back from a portion of the animal.    So can plants and bryozoans and most of the Earth's living things.    Metazoans are weird in that we generally can't regenerate that way.   But my daughter, when she was very young, lost the first knuckle of a finger in a door.    And it grew back, including fingernail.   She was young enough that she retained the ability to regrow a fairly complex structure.

Well, that's an assumption that is not supported by the evidence.   Indeed, genetics and physiology shows that cnidarians (including jellyfish) are a sister taxon to other metazoans, and reflect a common ancestor that was neither.  

Cnidarian milestones in metazoan evolution

Integrative and Comparative Biology, Volume 47, Issue 5, November 2007, Pages 693–700

Abstract

Cnidarians display most of the characters considered as milestones of metazoan evolution. Whereas a tissue-level organization was probably already present in the multicellular common ancestor of all animals, the Urmetazoa, the emergence of important animal features such as bilateral symmetry, triploblasty, a polarized nervous system, sense organs (eyes, statocysts), and a (chitinous or calcium-based) continuous skeleton can be traced back before the divergence between cnidarians and bilaterians. Modularity and metamery might be also regarded as two faces of the same medal, likely involving conserved molecular mechanisms ruling animal body architectures through regional specification of iterated units. Available evidence indicates that the common ancestor of cnidarians and bilaterians, the UrEumetazoa, was a surprisingly complex animal with nerve cell differentiation. We suggest that paedomorphic events in descendants of this ancestor led to the array of diversity seen in the main extant animal phyla. The use of molecular analyses and identifying the genetic determinants of anatomical organizations can provide an integrative test of hypotheses of homologies and independent evidence of the evolutionary relationships among extant taxa.

The real advance in life on Earth was the evolution of the eukaryote cell, almost certainly by endosymbiotic processes.    That made everything else possible.

 

It amazes me how just a sliver holds information for a entire adult worm to appear.

Or caterpillar to butterfly, the caterpillar stem cells will fire off  enzymes to dissolve itself into that imaginal disc and the soup holds the blue print for the creation of the butterfly built from scratch amazing.

I've read or saw something on stem cells and how they can store vast amount of information. Maybe these libraries are so vast because every evolutionary changes in species are predetermined cells that turn on and off over the coarse of creation. 

Maybe metamorphosis had a bigger role across the whole of species until a certain time and was allocated to the insect world mainly and other species having there own path of evolution but all pre-designed and activated at there given time and still are doing that.

Scientist have known stem cells turn and off all the time but not so much on what causes them too. Like the Caterpillar to butterfly seems to be a preset activation.

Edited May 27, 2022 by BeyondET

[BeyondET]

Then theres the mantis shrimp in a league by itself.

Nothing has better vision rather natural or manmade I find that incredible.

And other things produce heat as hot as the sun.

[BeyondET]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

  Metazoans are weird in that we generally can't regenerate that way.   But my daughter, when she was very young, lost the first knuckle of a finger in a door.    And it grew back, including fingernail.   She was young enough that she retained the ability to regrow a fairly complex structure.

 

That's cool too regeneration, part of the lower ribs can grow back if removed, I think half a liver can be removed it will grow back.

The immortal jellyfish is another not sure what kind of reproduction that is?? reversing back to a fetus when it gets old or stressed if not for being food for other animals or inviromental change it can live for ever.

There are so many ways life reproduces thrives kind of mind boggling just the stuff we know, no wonder scripture is kind of basic teachings on creation who can truly grasp it.

Edited May 27, 2022 by BeyondET

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

God didn't say that.   That is man's attempt to edit Genesis to fit his own wishes.

In fact, it's not what He said at all.

You can assert this. It's your prerogative.

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Well, that's the problem for creationists, isn't it?   Over time, we have abundant evidence that species changed into new species, genera, families, classes, orders, and so on.   Even informed YE creationists admit that the fossil evidence for this is "very good."

There it is again. If I was an informed YE creationist.... 

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Yes.   The problem for creationists is that they don't approve of the way he saw fit.

So from the Genesis creation story God started evolution? Genesis doesn't record that. You can't read billions of years and fish becoming man into Genesis 1 and 2.

God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him and man lived. 

I don't care what anyone says that isn't evolution. If man came from fish then the scripture is wrong. The scripture is not wrong. Man therefore did not come from fish.

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

All new species are complete organisms.  Even though they evolved from earlier ones.    But our creation by God is about the living souls he gives us directly, not how our species evolved.    Since God is a spirit, and has no body, the image of God in us is in our minds an souls, not in any bodily appearance.

Sure He does. God in the Flesh, Jesus Christ. 

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You got that one mixed up.   It's called the "no true Scotsman fallacy", and it doesn't work here.    I'm merely pointing out that even honest creationists who know about the evidence, admit the fact that we have all these transitionals, indicating evolution.

You obviously knew what I meant and it's fitting. And this it the 3rd time you have appealed to the fallacy. "Even honest creationists..." implying I'm not an honest creationist but if I was then I would think the same. 

"It's a common statement used in debating or concluding a particular point that attempts to compare the actions, words, or beliefs of one person to all Scotsmen[honest creationists, informed creationists]. This is a common logical fallacy that is inherently false due to its generalization and vagueness. The word "Scotsman" can be replaced with any other word to describe a person or group."

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

We have one skeleton, but it retains many of the features first seen in fish.  Our jaws and ears, for example, are derived from the same bones that formed them in fish.    Likewise, our backbones, limb and finger and toe bones, etc. are the same as found in lobed-fin fish.  

It's just some common characteristics that perform tasks in multiple conditions and environments. Vertebrates are going to have similar structures, made that way from the beginning. Similar attributes do not provide evidence of 4 billion years of evolution.

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It's no coincidence that humans and lungfish are genetically closer to each other than either is to other sorts of fish.    This is why YE creationist Dr. wise points out that these are very good evidence for evolution.    BTW, lungs first appeared in fish and we retain a modified form of the fish lung.

Evidence would be evolution now or in the recent past with a transitioning form. Show me a creature giving birth to a transitional form. Lungfish are specialized to their environment. Life must have common characteristics. For example the need for air. That commonality is not evidence for anything more than life needs to breathe.

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You've been misled about that.   A transitional form has apomorphic characters of two different groups.    For example, Acanthostega is an extinct fish that has all the fishlike characteristics, but it also has functional walking legs.   It apparently used them to move about on the bottom of shallow ponds.    There are a lot of other, more advanced transitionals, like Icthyostega, if you'd like me to show them to you.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fudo.savalli.us%2FBIO370%2FDiversity%2F04.SarcopterygiiImages%2FAcanthostegaFossil.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

 

There can't just be many more. There should be billions of transitional forms far outstripping the numbers of finished forms. In fact, fossilized finished forms should be the rarer find. 

I have not been misled. It's a logical requirement. Fish aren't coming up from the ocean to survive on land unless that fish has the required anatomy to survive on land, and in the water. The fish didn't flop out of the water on to the shore and immediately and spontaneously grow the required physiology of a land based organism; that physiology would have developed over time while in it's natural environment, to point of viability on land.

We should see fish with land animal characteristics of both man and the thousands of land beasts, not just the one poor example of lungfish. those characteristics would have to include two of every system: respiratory, circulatory, nervous, excretory, digestive and ambulatory, etc.; land and water living systems are designed to function in very different environments. It's just ludicrous. 

Worse in my mind is the fish/man lacking the knowledge and skills to become land based. The importation of that necessary information cannot be accounted for by chance or randomness and must be the result of intelligence and purpose.

There is no such thing as billions of years of evolution. It's the grand deception.

 

[The Barbarian]

God didn't say that.   That is man's attempt to edit Genesis to fit his own wishes.

In fact, it's not what He said at all.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

You can assert this. It's your prerogative.

It's just a fact.  It's not debatable.   That's not what God said.   Look it up for yourself.

Over time, we have abundant evidence that species changed into new species, genera, families, classes, orders, and so on.   Even informed YE creationists admit that the fossil evidence for this is "very good."

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

There it is again. If I was an informed YE creationist.... 

Again, that's just a fact.   To quote your fellow YE creationist:
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Evidence would be evolution now or in the recent past with a transitioning form.

Here's a few...
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —
include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been
confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed
ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the
various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.

Dr. Kurt Wise, YE creationist

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

There can't just be many more. There should be billions of transitional forms far outstripping the numbers of finished forms. In fact, fossilized finished forms should be the rarer find.

That is wrong.   We do see billions of transitional forms, but of course we see many more that are not transitional.     Observed speciations show a relatively quick evolution of a new species, followed by long periods of little or no evolution.  So the fossil record shows exactly what we should see.    The point is that if creationism were true, we would see no transitionals at all.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

I have not been misled. It's a logical requirement. Fish aren't coming up from the ocean to survive on land unless that fish has the required anatomy to survive on land, and in the water. The fish didn't flop out of the water on to the shore and immediately and spontaneously grow the required physiology of a land based organism; that physiology would have developed over time while in it's natural environment, to point of viability on land.

Which is what happens.   Even today, we have fish that come out of the water and climb trees.   Transitional form.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

We should see fish with land animal characteristics of both man and the thousands of land beasts

Nope.   That would be entirely opposed to evolution as we see it.   One important thing to understand is that while all these transitional forms are very good evidence for evolution, even more compelling is that we don't see any transitionals like the ones you demand exist.    No mammals with feathers.   Only those that actually show transitions to other groups.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

those characteristics would have to include two of every system: respiratory, circulatory, nervous, excretory, digestive and ambulatory, etc.;

That's wrong, too.  for example our mudskipper walks and climbs using fins.   Legs evolved from fins.  Would you like to see the evidence?

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

Worse in my mind is the fish/man lacking the knowledge and skills to become land based.

See above.  It's happened more than once.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

The importation of that necessary information cannot be accounted for by chance or randomness

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

There is no such thing as billions of years of evolution.

The evidence says you're wrong.    Reality might be annoying, but it is real.

 

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, BeyondET said:

That's cool too regeneration, part of the lower ribs can grow back if removed, I think half a liver can be removed it will grow back.

The immortal jellyfish is another not sure what kind of reproduction that is?? reversing back to a fetus when it gets old or stressed if not for being food for other animals or inviromental change it can live for ever.

There are so many ways life reproduces thrives kind of mind boggling just the stuff we know, no wonder scripture is kind of basic teachings on creation who can truly grasp it.

Aging is merely the loss of telomeres on the end of the DNA of cells.    Some organisms don't have this loss and could, in principle, last forever.