How mutation adds information to a population genome

[The Barbarian]

9 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

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.

Nope.  If you can't show that they couldn't evolve, then it's possible that they did.   So your claim fails.   I imagine you've realized that such things can indeed evolve, even if we don't yet know how.   When I was starting in biology, we had no transitionals for fish and tetrapods, ungulates and whales,  and many other things.  Today, we have all those and many more.  So basing your beliefs on what is not yet known is a mistake.

12 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

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.

As you now realize, it's an optimal strategy to avoid predation.   How it happens specicfically is still to be determined. But it works.

13 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

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

That's like saying if physics was true, we'd be able to show a grand unified theory of force and matter.   There are still problems to solve in all sciences.  But unless you show that such things as 13-year locusts are impossible to evolve, it's a dead end for you.

15 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

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.

Paley used a human artifact, instead of a natural object for a good reason; if he had used something natural, no one would have gotten his point.   Natural things are produced by natural processes.  Human artifacts are designed.

 

[teddyv]

And just because certain aspects of the natural world have not been explained does not mean that the answer will never be explained.

[The Barbarian]

22 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

For claiming to be so intelligent, you demonstrate very little in this argument...catholics are not Christians.

I recognize that those who accept the Apostle's creed are Christians.  That is how they recognized each other during the persecutions.   Your modern revisions are merely the additions made by some sect among Christians and do not define who we are.

Let God handle that, and you'll be troubled no more by it.

And I never claimed to be intelligent.  But thank you for assuming it.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

49 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

To be fair just because most Christians accept evolution does not mean they are right. 

This is true.  It merely means that we don't see it as a defining doctrine in our faith.   You can accept it, or you can reject it, and still be as good a Christian as anyone else.   

I consider homosexual behavior to be a sin.   I recognize that some Christians don't.  It's not a salvation issue, either.  And I know Jesus spent no time at all on it, compared to the deadly sins of pride, greed, lust, wrath, gluttony, envy, and sloth.   Maybe lust fits there.   I do recognize that a celibate homosexual is as praiseworthy as a celibate unmarried heterosexual.   They have a heavy cross to bear, and I respect those among them who can bear it honorably.

And since I've never wanted to be among the "my sin is nicer than your sin" congregation, I try to humbly recognize that I am also a sinner before God.

 

[The Barbarian]

35 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

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.

You're claiming that these are impossible to evolve, but you offer no reason for us to believe it.   And yes, unless you want to admit that it is possible, you have to show that it is not.

36 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

Its not about predation or prime numbers...i

It's all about that.   You see for whatever reason those prime number are difficult for predators to match.   And so these insects manage to appear in huge numbers without a corresponding large number of predators to take them.

 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, SwordMaster said:

For claiming to be so intelligent, you demonstrate very little in this argument...catholics are not Christians.

If you want to bash evolution, that's fine. But this is outright slander. I know many Catholics that are solid Christians. You are not the gatekeeper of who is and who is not Christian.

I'm certain that not all Catholic church attenders are Christian. I'm just as certain that not all attenders of your church denomination are Christian.

[The Barbarian]

Here's why many cicadas mature in cycles that are prime numbers:

But the 13- and 17-year recurrence of cicada emergences may be an even savvier strategy. Both 13 and 17 are prime numbers, meaning they're divisible only by 1 and themselves. This means that emergences rarely overlap with predator population cycles that occur in shorter intervals. For example, if cicadas emerged every 10 years, they'd be susceptible to predators whose population boomed on a cycle of one, two, five or 10 years. If they came out every 12 years, they'd be a tasty snack for any predator on a cycle of one, two, three, four, six or 12 years. Thirteen years, though? Only one and 13. The same goes for a 17-year cycle.

Glenn Webb, a biological mathematician at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, has done mathematical modeling that suggests that if periodical cicadas didn't use prime-number cycles, they'd drop dramatically in numbers or go extinct. In a 2001 paper in the journal Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, Webb compared survival in cycles ranging from 10 to 18 years. Thirteen- and 17-year cycles performed best, yielding a stable population. The other cycle options led to declines, and 10-, 12- and 18-year cycles led to dramatic population losses or even extinction.

https://www.livescience.com/periodical-cicada-prime-numbers.html

Edited August 18, 2022 by The Barbarian

[ayin jade]

Cicadas...every summer in my state during monsoon season. I love hearing them. We know when we hear them that there is enough humidity to rain.

[ayin jade]

As i read this thread i am reminded of a verse. I am limited to my phone for a few days as my husband is working out of town..and i went with him... So i cant post the verse.

If you have not love then your words are an obnoxious claxon.

[SwordMaster]

Quote

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.

I will correct you only once more on this issue: change of allele frequency of a population over time is adaptation, not molecules to mule evolution. You keep referring back to this nonsense on every turn, refusing to acknowledge the clear implications of the facts of nature. New mutations destroy existing information, they do not add alleles to existing genetic information, they only add bio-entropy into the mix that destroys the specificity of existing genes.

There are no examples in the real world of mutations (aside from duplications) that add information to an organism's genetic profile, they only destroy information regardless of whether that damage confers some kind of benefit to that population (again, like SCA).

You can keep touting that lame story over and over again, but it does not lead to "macroevolution" as it is called, only adaptation. Adaptation does not lead from one species into another, that has never been codified, only told in just-so story telling.

 

Quote

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. 

 

Either you don't listen too well, or you don't understand what I stated. A protein is NOT a phenotypic character...do you understand what the phenotype is? It is a physical, observable trait...arms, legs, fingers, toes, ears, hooves, snout, fins, whiskers, etc., etc... How in the world do you think I am supposed to take you seriously when you don't even know what you are talking about?

Plus, you don't know what you are talking about here, either. The enzyme that allows people to metabolize milk is found in every human being, but after a certain age the human body normally ceases to produce large quantities of the enzyme. Those who can still metabolize milk have suffered a mutation that continues producing the enzyme after it is normally switched off because humans after a certain age no longer need to sustain life with only milk.

Please, try to at least get your facts straight before...

 

Quote

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.

Wrong again, unless the appearance of the wheat changed, you are not addressing a phenotype again. Furthermore, the wheat did not suffer a mutation, it was purposely groomed in order to produce the adaptation. You call any genetic change as a mutation, when not all genetic change is a mutation...typical evolutionist blundering and deception upon those who know no better.

It won't work on me. Try again, do far you are still failing...

 

Quote

...Analyses of changes in genes and regulatory elements during the vertebrate adaptation to land ...

Another example that you don't have a clue about what you claim. Read the above sentence again, several times, even slowly.

The article claims to have analyzed the changes in genes DURING vertebrate adaptation to land...REALLY!!! Who was there that witnessed these changes? Who was there during those changes taking place? This is the problem...evolutionists make matter of fact statements based upon scant evidence (if any at all) concerning evolutionary changes, and people like you can't see past their words because your bias is completely saturated by TOEist nonsense brain washing.

You cannot look at the genes of an organism and claim any actual change unless you are keeping close tabs on a living population. To claim anything else is pure lies. Dobzhansky fruit fly experiments completely destroyed what you keep trying to make us believe.

No matter the phenotypic changes that he managed to produce in his fruit fly experiments in effort to prove evolution from single celled organisms to the vast majority of life on earth, whatever he managed to cause through mutation (extra halters, legs where antennae were supposed to be, etc.), when those populations were left to themselves the natural order of the genetic framework REVERSED the mutations and those flies descendants went back to normal. This is how God made organisms to be.

Once again, you failed...I would suggest that you stop believing the nonsense lies of evolutionary scientists and start believing what Scripture says in every facet. People better than you have tried to demonstrate falsities in the Bible and have never succeeded, and many came to be believers after trying to do so. Evolutionary theory is just another failed attempt.