How mutation adds information to a population genome

[SwordMaster]

27 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

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

 

LOL! Its not an assumption, it is a fact. Since evolutionary theory cannot account for life on earth AT ALL, your "test" is moot. Try again.

 

[The Barbarian]

7 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

LOL! No, I am not speaking about adaptation which is built into the organism's genetic code already

Nor am I.  We are talking about evolution, which is a change in the allele frequency of a population over time.  Both new mutations and existing alleles will contribute to those changes.   Would you like to learn how that works?

9 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

I am specifically referring to the FACT that mutations do not lead to the production of a novel phenotypic character

Well, that's a testable assumption.    Let's look at humans.   The lac gene allows adults to metabolize lactose, making dairying possible as a source of food.   The mutation appeared a few thousand years ago, and spread rapidly in the populations of many groups of humans. 

The mutation that changed wheat from the wild form that shatters, scattering seeds, to the modern form that must be threashed, appeared in the Middle East around the beginning of large-scale farming.   It quickly replaced the old phenotype.

12 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

(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). 

It turns out that the same genes that determine the fins of lobed-fin fish, also determine the limbs of tetrapods.    Fortunately, several species of lobed-fin fish are still living, an their genes, as predicted, explain the genes that are responsible for our limbs:

Nature: 496, pages 311–316 (2013)

The African coelacanth genome provides insights into tetrapod evolution

...Analyses of changes in genes and regulatory elements during the vertebrate adaptation to land highlight genes involved in immunity, nitrogen excretion and the development of fins, tail, ear, eye, brain and olfaction. Functional assays of enhancers involved in the fin-to-limb transition and in the emergence of extra-embryonic tissues show the importance of the coelacanth genome as a blueprint for understanding tetrapod evolution.

Nice try, but you fail again.

[ayin jade]

25 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

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?

 

Bacteria share resistance with other bacteria. Not quite the same as reproducing via offspring such changes.

[ayin jade]

24 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

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. 

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.  

To be fair just because most Christians accept evolution does not mean they are right. After all acceptance of lbgq etc is increasing among Christians but that is wrong.

[The Barbarian]

As your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise notes, there is also very good evidence from the numerous fossil transitionals between fish and tetrapods for macroevolutionary theory.   

[SwordMaster]

20 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Let's look at that assumption. 

 

LOL! Once again, it is not an assumption, it is a fact...

Quote

 

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.

 

Let me be more precise - there are no evolutionary predictions that stand up to scrutiny that predict evolutionary molecule to man speciation. Don't play dumb, you know what I am talking about. 

Sure there were dinosaurs with feathers, a true prediction would be that dinosaurs gave way to birds, which has never been proven outside of assuming TOE in the first place, which is tautology, not clear scientific statements.

 

Quote

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

Wrong again, buck-o. 

First, every so-called whale with legs were not whales, they were creatures like beavers and such that lived in an aquatic environment. Making the claim that a species of land animal with fangs drank blood for food just because vampire bats also have fangs and drink blood for food is really quite moronic. Yet these are the types of claims that evolutionists make hoping that all of us are as moronic as they are and will believe it just because they claim it.

Second, you cannot claim that a whale like creature had functional legs unless and until you see that creature actually walking on land. Ostriches have wings and feathers, yet they cannot fly...as well as other examples. you truly have taken the hook, line, and sinker without using your brain to actually examine in detail the nonsense that you believe.

 

Quote

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

No, we don't. What we have, are the fossilized remains of organisms that evolutionist have made cladograms and the like of in order to give the appearance of transitional forms from one group of organisms supposedly into another. 

Wrong again...and again...and again. With all of the millions of fossil remains that we have today, if what you claim was true, we should have at least ONE clear cut example of the line of descent from, say, a squirrel like creature to a wolf line creature (as an example). And yet we do not. Not even one.

Instead, we have "family trees" from a single supposed ancestor with unfilled-in branches that the original supposedly gave rise to - with absolutely no evidence for those branches at all.

There isn't just one "missing link," there are thousands of them in the theory.

 

Quote

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

Again, this is not evolution, this is adaptation. This "prediction" was not ever predicted by evolution, it is predicted by population genetics. Try again.

 

 

Quote

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.

Again, this was not predicted by evolution, it is predicted by genetics. Now, IF you have positive evidence that followed the hereditary line backwards from man to single celled organism, THEN it would be an evolutionary prediction.

You are so confused by the lies TOE spins that you cannot tell the difference between a prediction from biology to that of a false theory, and part of your problem is that you assume evolution into the equation without ever thinking about what you are claiming. That is not science.

 

 

Quote

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

Again, a prediction that is from a medical science, NOT the false theory of evolution from single celled organism to man.

 

Quote

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.

Yes...and AGAIN...this is not an evolutionary prediction, it is a prediction from genetics. You are laboring under the false ideology that all science falls under TOE, and in that is your greatest weakness and fault.

 

Quote

How many more would you like to see?

Well...since you have failed to produce even a single one, why don't you just keep going until you can find one that IS actually a prediction of the theory of evolution, and not from genetics, heredity, biology, etc.

So far, you have failed...again.

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

6 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

Bacteria share resistance with other bacteria. Not quite the same as reproducing via offspring such changes.

Yes.   This is true.   Prokaryotes (bacteria and similar organisms) are quite capable of swapping genes outside of the species.   It's called "conjugation" and is a primitive form of sex.   In the process, genes are transferred to another prokarote through pilli on the surface of the cells.    They are really good at this; when the nylonase mutation appeared on one species, it was rapidly transferred to different species of bacteria living in waste ponds of nylon manufacturing plants.

It's called "lateral gene transfer" and it happens occasionally in eukaryotes including plants and animals, but not nearly as often as it happens in prokaryotes.  In humans, occasionally a DNA virus will get incorporated into our genome, and sometimes, it can be carrying something from another species.  I'll see if I can find you some examples.

And yes, it can give biologists fits, when they find something like that where it "shouldn't be."

 

[SwordMaster]

33 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

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. 

Oh...so now you are playing word games because you cannot stand otherwise. Nice try, but you lose again. They do not uphold it, if they did then they would state that they believe God created through evolution...which is quite absurd for anyone who claims to be a Christian to uphold.

 

Quote

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.

For claiming to be so intelligent, you demonstrate very little in this argument...catholics are not Christians. Perhaps you need to refresh your memory and go over church history again. The RCC ceased to be Christian after Constantine produced his Edict of Milan, and Roman citizens began attending catholic mass along with the other gods of Rome.

There is such a difference between what the RCC and actual Biblical churches teach that when the Reformation started, the RCC was burning Christians at the stake. You are not as astute in the facts that you believe yourself to be.

For that matter, the current pope is a clear apostate, claiming that the earth has become sentient somehow and that we must help "mother nature" to survive and keep "Gaia" alive through various means. He is a UN stooge used by them to promote their new world order and their new world religion. Read Revelation again (that is, if you believe what it says), because this is prophesied about...the blending of religion called the Great Whore.

 

Quote

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

Again, you make a lot of false "matter of fact" statements, just like a true evolutionist! Congratulations! However, you are deceived here again.

As a good conservative assumption based upon numerous polling entities, it is a good position that 90% of those who claim to be Christian today are not, so your claim is moot on several points. 

Do some research...many of what was once called mainline Christian denominations are not apostate, like the Presbyterian church denominations, The Evangelical Lutheran Church, Mennonite church organizations, the United Church of Christ, and the two denominations of the Methodist churches, just to name a few. 

You count apostate "christians" as Christians, and they are not. It sounds like you really need to stop messing with TOE for a while and study what Scripture teaches.

You can't follow Christ and be a true Christian if you believe things contrary to what Scripture actually teaches. James says that this is how you deceive yourself into thinking that you are walking with God, when you actually are not.

 

 

  

[SwordMaster]

40 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

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?

 

 

LOL! You avoided the point altogether. And, its not my place to demonstrate that such unseen mechanisms can not evolve - it is YOUR position in protecting TOE to show that they did.

Its not about predation or prime numbers...its about how they remain underground for 13/17 years and then for no apparent reason, erupt from the ground by the millions. Its about how the timing mechanism...whether it is physical or spiritual, where is it, how did it come to be, etc.

TOE has no answers for these, and if TOE was true, then there would be an evolutionary answer.

It goes right back to Paley...that watch that you found on the ground, you instantly know that it was created by an intelligent designer. To think that it could come together piece by piece over billions of years is quite ludicrous.

But, again, nice try, but you fail again.

[The Barbarian]

1 minute ago, SwordMaster said:

Let me be more precise - there are no evolutionary predictions that stand up to scrutiny that predict evolutionary molecule to man speciation.

As you learned, that's not part of evolutionary theory.   However, as you also learned, genetics says that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor.   So your task would be to show what step from bacterium to humans, could not possibly have evolved.   What do you have?

3 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

Sure there were dinosaurs with feathers, a true prediction would be that dinosaurs gave way to birds, which has never been proven

Actually, birds are dinosaurs.   If you doubt this, name something in birds that we don't see in at least some dinosaurs.   What do you have?

4 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

First, every so-called whale with legs were not whales

No, that's wrong.    Rhodocetus, a primitive whale, had legs.   It had a whale skull and teeth, swam like a whale, but had legs.

17 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

Ostriches have wings and feathers, yet they cannot fly

But the wings are functional.   Early winged dinosaurs likely used them the same way.   They are used in running.

18 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

No, we don't. What we have, are the fossilized remains of organisms that evolutionist have made cladograms and the like of in order to give the appearance of transitional forms from one group of organisms supposedly into another. 

Your fellow YE creationist disagree.  One calls such transitional forms "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

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

20 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

Again, this is not evolution, this is adaptation. This "prediction" was not ever predicted by evolution, it is predicted by population genetics.

You've forgotten what evolution is, again.   Change in allele frequencies in a population.   And these were predicted by evolutionary theory to happen in such cases.   And as you learned, mutations provide new alleles to further allow evolutionary change.  BTW. population genetics is a subdiscipline of evolution:

Abstract

Population genetics is concerned with genetic differences within and across populations, and the dynamics of how populations evolve as a result of the propagation of genetic mutations occurring within the germlines of individuals.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/population-genetics

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

26 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

Again, a prediction that is from a medical science,

Yes, Flemming based his prediction on evolutionary theory.   He assumed that natural selection would favor new mutations that would make bacteria resistant to the antibiotic.   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.

28 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

Yes...and AGAIN...this is not an evolutionary prediction

That's what it is.  It was based on natural selection acting on individuals to favor those with genes for larger body size.   Just as Darwin predicted.

You seem to have surrendered to everything; you just don't want to call it "evolution."  But as you now see, all of this is within the scientific definition of evolution.