How mutation adds information to a population genome

[SwordMaster]

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Remember when I told you that not knowing what evolution is, was a problem for you?  It just bit you again.

Even Darwin just assumed that God created life at the beginning:

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

Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Evolution is not about the origin of life.   Maybe you should go and learn what evolutionary theory actually says?

 

Sorry, pal...more nonsense on your part. Evolution did encompass origin of life until it became painfully obvious that naturalism can't produce life from non-living chemicals. Go back and read origin of life papers in the 50's and 60's...they all claim that what they were doing would demonstrate evolution.

I also recall that Darwin later lamented that he ever printed the Origin of Species, I can't remember why, but you probably wouldn't agree with it anyway.

 

[SwordMaster]

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Sorry, that's wrong.   Evolution only has to account for the way allele frequencies change in a population. 

Theories are accountable only for their predictions.    Which of Darwin's four points do you think has been refuted?  Be specific.

 

Sorry, but your sad rebuttal is wrong. Since alleles account for every part of a living organism, then if evolution is true it is what created every single aspect of every living organism in the world. 

And, point of fact, TOE cannot predict anything because it is not a valid scientific theory. All of the so-called "predictions" of TOE are either adaptational changes (which is not molecules to man evolution, and which does not lead to such), or they are just-so scenario stories that cannot be demonstrated in any way, shape, or form.

Dawkins is a master (idiot) in this area...constantly giving so-called predictions that have been met when in fact all he does is give layer upon layer of "thought experiments" that do not prove a single thing.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 minute ago, SwordMaster said:

Sorry, pal...more nonsense on your part. Evolution did encompass origin of life until it became painfully obvious that naturalism can't produce life from non-living chemicals.

Sorry, this is again your confusion.   Darwin made no claims about the origin of life, other than suggesting that God did it:

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

Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1859

So you see, it's been that way since the beginning of evolutionary theory. 

5 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

Go back and read origin of life papers in the 50's and 60's...they all claim that what they were doing would demonstrate evolution.

Haven't seen that in any of them.   But let's see what you have.   Show us an example.

6 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

I also recall that Darwin later lamented that he ever printed the Origin of Species, I can't remember why

And you can't even show us that he did.   As usual.   Do you now see why it would help you greatly if you knew what evolution and evolutionary theory are?

 

[The Barbarian]

3 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

Sorry, but your sad rebuttal is wrong. Since alleles account for every part of a living organism, then if evolution is true it is what created every single aspect of every living organism in the world. 

Sounds interesting.   Let's test that assumption.   Tell me how evolutionary theory accounts for life on Earth being carbon-based.   What do you have?

 

[The Barbarian]

5 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

And, point of fact, TOE cannot predict anything because it is not a valid scientific theory.

Let's look at that assumption.  Based on the structure of ears in birds and crocodiles, Thomas Huxlely predicted that there must have been dinosaurs with feathers.  

As you know, that has been confirmed.

Darwin predicted that there must have been whales with functional legs.   And that too has been confirmed.

Evolutionary theory predicted transitional forms between fish and tetrapods.   And now, we have those.

Evolutionary theory predicts that when conditions change in an environment, then the allele frequences of populations will change.   And again, confirmed.

When DNA was discovered to be the stuff of heredity, it was predicted that one should be able to produce a phylogeny for DNA relationships that match those produced from anatomy and fossil records.   And that prediction was demonstrated.

When Sir Alexander Flemming discovered penicillin, he predicted that overuse of the antibiotic would lead to the evolution of resistant bacteria.   He was correct.

A research team in on Daphne Minor correctly predicted that alleles for larger finches would be favored under specific conditions.   And their predictions were valdated when the island experience a drought.

How many more would you like to see?

 

[SwordMaster]

Quote

I would be happy to have a conversation if there is something specific you'd like to discuss.

Sure.

How about the many "unseen biological programs" that evolution can not account for...

 

13 and 17 year cicadas, for example...how did the timing mechanism evolve?

There is also the common asparagus plant, which crops for seventeen years and then will never crop again...the timing mechanism...

Other examples of internal timing mechanisms are found in certain kinds of cactus that only bloom every twelve years (how does the plant know that twelve years has gone by?).

There is a specie of bamboo tree that only blooms every one hundred and seventeen years (again, how does it know when 117 years has gone by?)…

There are many more, but we can start with these...

 

 

[The Barbarian]

3 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

It is testable...and if you are going to test the statement, then do it right. I researched four different Anglican statements of faith and not one of them uphold evolution.

And not one of them reject it.  Congratulations.   You've made my point for me.   The Anglican Church makes no commitment to creationism or evolution. 

7 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

As for catholics, they are not Christians..

They are, as you know, the largest single denomination of Christians.   When you try to push other Christians away from God, you only succeed in removing yourself from Him.  Don't make that mistake.

As you now realize, most of the world's Christians accept that evolution is consistent with our faith.  

[SwordMaster]

On 8/16/2022 at 1:47 PM, The Barbarian said:

You were misled about that, too.   You see, there was a big problem with Darwin's theory.    If heredity is like mixing paint (as most scientists of Darwin's time thought) then a new trait would be swamped in the population like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white.   Darwin's theory supposed that a new trait would somehow spread in a population if it was useful, but he could not explain how it might not simply be diluted out of existence.   Darwin himself recognized this problem, and supposed that some way to keep such new traits must be built into heredity.

Then in the 1900s, Mendel's work was rediscovered, and it was realized that heredity was like sorting beads, not like mixing paint.   Darwin's prediction was confirmed, and Darwin's theory was saved by genetics.

Darwin and DNA: How genetics spurred the evolution of a theory

Mendel and Darwin lived at the same time but never met - yet their ideas about of the natural world would unite into a single revolutionary discovery  

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130880-400-the-odd-couple-how-evolution-and-genetics-finally-got-together/

LOL! No, I am not speaking about adaptation which is built into the organism's genetic code already, just waiting for the right conditions through environmental cues to activate certain genes.

I am specifically referring to the FACT that mutations do not lead to the production of a novel phenotypic character (for the benefit of those reading who might not know what that is...an example would be a fish incurring mutations over time that would build an arm or leg). 

Fish do not have the genetic instructions for arms or legs, and no amount of mutation can build the genetic blue-prints for arms or legs in fish.

Nice try, but you fail again.

 

[The Barbarian]

3 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

13 and 17 year cicadas, for example...how did the timing mechanism evolve?

They show up in huge numbers as adults for a brief time and then are gone.   Perfect for predators which might evolve to also appear in synchrony with them.   But it's not a coincidence that they appear in intervals of two prime numbers.    If you thought about it, you might realize why that's the best strategy to avoid predation.   Let me know what you figure out.

I don't see how such things could not evolve.   Perhaps you could show us that it's impossible?

 

 

[SwordMaster]

25 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Sorry, this is again your confusion.   Darwin made no claims about the origin of life, other than suggesting that God did it:

 

You keep referring only to Darwin...it doesn't matter what he thought, what matters is what those who came behind him in trying to prove his nonsense ideas. Numerous evolutionists before the 1960's taught that evolution began life, which is why they started all of the hundreds of origin of life experiments and failed in every one of them.

You seem to like to ignore all of the facts and only bring up those you think help your argument...not surprising, because that is what evolutionists do.