How mutation adds information to a population genome

[The Barbarian]

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.

2 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

I will correct you only once more on this issue:

To do that, you would first have to know what evolution is.   And you have demonstrated to all of us that you do not.

2 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

change of allele frequency of a population over time is adaptation

No, that's wrong.   It can be adaptive.  But it can also be maladaptive.   Change is merely change.   This is why some populations go extinct.    Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population, or if this confuses you, "descent with modfification" (Darwin's terms).    Biology 101.  

2 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

New mutations destroy existing information, they do not add alleles to existing genetic information,

That's wrong.  In fact, as Claude Shannon (the founder of information science) showed, every mutation in a population adds information to that population.   It's a matter of mathematical certainty.   A new mutation is a new allele.   You have maybe 100 of them that weren't present in either of your parents.  BTW, Shannon's theory also tell us how to communicate with spacecraft over billions of kilometers with very low-powered transmitters.   So we know it's a workable theory.

And since information is based on the population, not an individual, even a point mutation for a single unduplicated gene won't "destroy information."  That's just a story creationists tell each other.   And most new alleles are formed by mutation of a duplicate gene or mutation of non-coding DNA, so it often keeps all the old information even in that individual.  You are really holding yourself back by not knowing how this all works.

You are now sounding like a broken record.   You've been repeatedly shown the scientific definition of biological evolution, but keep pretending that it's something else.   Do you think no one has noticed?

 

 

[The Barbarian]

11 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

can only go by what people say that they believe. For example, I tend to think that if a person believes that there is one God, that God is three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That Jesus is the Son of God, in human flesh, born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died for sinners on the cross, was entombed then rose from the dead after three days, ascended to heaven and will return visibly some day, I have a difficult time saying some one like that is not a Christian.

This is what Jesus' first followers thought.   We should not add theological barriers to people who might otherwise come to Him.  While all demonomations have theological differences, I wonder if God doesn't consider it a good thing that people come to Him in denominations that happen to fit them.

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

Plus, in truth, what you have given above is only drawings of certain appendages of certain organisms...

And the discovery that these bones in lobed-fin fish are controlled by the same genes that control the development of our limbs.   So it's not just fossil evidence, showing the development of legs from fins (there were some fish with legs at one point; we have several species of them in evidence now) it's genetics also supporting this fact.

2 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

Like Mayr said, what runs evolutionary science is not scientific facts and experimentation or observation of change - instead, it is run by the imaginations of theorists giving us their assumptions on how they believe evolution took place.

Show us that in context.   In fact, Mayr shows experiments in evolution.  I very much doubt if you've ever read any book written by Mayr.  If you had, you wouldn't have said such a thing.

 

[The Barbarian]

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?

2 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

LOL! Birds are birds, not dinosaurs. You do realize that you make yourself a laughing stock by claiming such nonsense, right? And we are supposed to take you seriously?

I notice you're unable to name even one thing true of birds that is not true of at least some dinosaurs.   If you're right, you should be able to show us some of those things.   Yet you can't.   That should be a clue for you.

BTW, you seem to think "phenotype" means "looks like."   Once more, your failure to understand words has caused you a problem.

A phenotype is the expression of a gene:

In genetics, the phenotype (from Ancient Greek φαίνω (phaínō) 'to appear, show, shine', and τύπος (túpos) 'mark, type') is the set of observable characteristics or traits of an organism.^[1][2] The term covers the organism's morphology or physical form and structure, its developmental processes, its biochemical and physiological properties, its behavior, and the products of behavior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype

We can observe lactose tolerance, non-shattering wheat, and so on.    You've once again shown that you don't know what any of this means.   You'd be much more effecdtive as a creationist, if you knew these things.  Worth a try?

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

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.

As you learned, even YE creationists admit the observed fact of speciation.   There's really no point in denying observed facts.

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, ayin jade said:

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.

 1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues^[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. ² If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. ³ If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,^[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵ It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶ Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷ It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

One of my favorite passages from St. Paul.  

[ayin jade]

6 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

Sorry, but the apostles creed was never codified by any apostle, but by the RCC. It is the creed of catholics. Furthermore, no one is a Christian simply because they believe anything...if you think you are a Christian just because you believe in Christ, then you deceive yourself...

 

John 3:36  Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever does not obey the Son will never know life, because the wrath of God remains abiding upon him.

 

There are more, but one shall suffice. No one is a Christian because they believe the apostles creed, and claiming that nonsense should make all who read your post to take note. One is a Christian because they not only believe in Christ and God, but also in what His Word clearly states and teaches, and by walking in obedience to His Word and entering into covenant and personal relationship with God. That is what makes a person a Christian...not simply believing in Him, and certainly NOT because they believe a man-made creed that does NOT demonstrate the totality of what the Apostles taught.

But, as I have stated before...nice try, but you fail again.

 

Are you loving your neighbor as yourself? Because you have repeatedly insulted those who believe in evolution. That is not obeying Christ.

Your message is one I agree with but your presentation is terrible.

If that isnt enough consider the terms of service. Debate the topic not the person.

Leave out the constant jabs (schizophrenic moronic etc).

[ayin jade]

5 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

I agree...but there is a very real problem with some Christians, they don't understand Biblical love from worldly love.

Biblical Godly love says that you correct those who are wrong, while worldly love says to be nice to people no matter what they say or believe. That kind of love sends people to eternal fire...

 

Ezekiel 3:18-19  18 If I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul.

Jude 1:22-23  22 Some people you can love into the Kingdom of God, making a difference in their lives that catches their attention; 23 but others will only respond to fear, drawing them out of the eternal fire that they are headed into; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. 

 

This is Godly love for people. We must be careful that we don't confuse worldly love for Godly love, because if we do then we will be held accountable for doing the wrong things, like letting people continue in false doctrine instead of trying to educate them with truth.

Blessings

 

Godly love does not include insulting people.

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

Wow...I can see that you are completely brainwashed.

Perhaps one of us is.   Let's take a look at what you've been indoctrinated to believe...

First, that is what TOE states,

It is what genetics shows.   As predicted DNA analyses show that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor.

This is what DNA phylogenies say:

And we know this works, because we can do the analysis on organisms of known descent.  Darwin didn't actually say that all living things came from one ancestor.   But genetics says so.

9 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

Secondly, I learned that you don't know what you are talking about, that's about it.

I'll leave that to others here to read and decide for themselves.   Your third belief is refuted by the DNA phylogeny shown above.

9 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

Fourth, it is not my task to demonstrate that evolution cannot do what you claim that it has done

We realize that you can't show anything in biology that could not have evolved.  Your refusal to show even one thing is all we need from you. 

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?

9 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

Birds are birds, not dinosaurs.

 So nothing but your belief?    You can't think of even one difference between birds and other dinosaurs?   Nothing?   I used to think there were several things, but since I started studying biology, feathers, endothermy, "avian" respiratory systems, pneumatized bones, pygostyles, and many other things formerly thought to only be in birds turned up in other dinosaurs as well.  

You do realize that you greatly degrade your credibility by claiming such things and then refusing to support them with any evidence at all, right?   One last chance; support your belief by showing us some features in birds that are not found in other dinosaurs.

9 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

Try again. It had legs, it was not a whale, and it did not have a whale skull. As I showed you earlier and you completely ignored it, look at the skull of a dog and cat, aside from a few minor differences they look practically the same.

You're wrong about that.   It has a peculiar feature of the ear that is found only in cetaceans.   It has whale teeth.   It swam as a whale does.   And the skulls of dogs and cats, although much more similar to each other than either is to whales, are  very different.   The dental formulas (which are very important in mammals) are quite different as you would expect between an animal that eats a lot of vegetable matter like a canid, and an animal that is almost exclusively carnivorous like a cat.  A cat has fewer teeth, and lacks teeth for grinding food.   The cat's muzzle is much shorter, and it has more bones than a dog does, with a very flexible spine and limbs.   Modern dogs have been inbred to various odd shapes but wild canids retain all these traits, including a large saggital crest on the skull for larger muscle attachment to the jaws.   A cat, with a shorter jaw has no need for such a feature. 

9 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

What's more, you CANNOT claim that Rhodocetus "swam like a whale" unless you have physically observed first hand a living specimen actually swimming like a whale.

Yes, we can know that.   You see, the spine is built for an up-and-down motion.   This is a basic whale feature; they all move that way, unlike fish, which do a side-to-side motion while swimming.   It has to do with the way they evolved.  

The earliest whales still moved about on land and they had the typical mammalian motions we see in running animals like horses and dogs.   One early whale, Ambulocetus, had very large rear feet by which it swam using the same motion.   This is why whales have horizontal flukes and swim with that motion. 

9 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

Can you give clear cut fossil evidence of an unbroken chain of fossil remains demonstrating a water dwelling organism making it to land, and continuing into dinosaurian forms, and continuing into man or an elephant or any other creature alive today?

Well, let's test your belief on that.   Name me one step required for any of those that can't possibly exist, and we'll see if I can find one in the fossil record.   Give us one and we'll take a look.  

9 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

I have news for you, God says that He created all of the animals at the same time, distinct from one another..

Nope.  He never says "At the same time" or even "distinct from one another."    Those are your additions to His word to make it more acceptable to you.

 

[B-B]

9 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

Biblical Godly love says that you correct those who are wrong, while worldly love says to be nice to people no matter what they say or believe. That kind of love sends people to eternal fire...

 

Ezekiel 3:18-19  18 If I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul.

Jude 1:22-23  22 Some people you can love into the Kingdom of God, making a difference in their lives that catches their attention; 23 but others will only respond to fear, drawing them out of the eternal fire that they are headed into; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. 

 

This is Godly love for people. We must be careful that we don't confuse worldly love for Godly love, because if we do then we will be held accountable for doing the wrong things, like letting people continue in false doctrine instead of trying to educate them with truth.

I agree with you.

We are to respond appropriately when appropriate.

Our Lord didn’t mince His words. Neither was He passive aggressive, which unfortunately is a common occurrence in these Forum debates and is often overlooked and ignored.

By being passive aggressive, folks get away with their hostility.

 

However, our God won’t be mocked.

Our Lord had no problem calling out the hypocrites and false teachers of His day, as they were leading people astray.

I suppose those who He called Brood of Vipers and White washed tombs probably felt rather insulted too….

Just my thoughts…