Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Lol so why dont you actually read that wiki. It provides great examples as to how mutations spread throughout populations, since you didnt believe that. You should really pay attention to the "selection", "gene flow", and genetic drift" parts.
When are you gonna respond to the flies that were introduced to radiation ?
You realize that radiation tends to be detrimental to the genome by causing thymine dimers and that there are a multitude of other ways to have mutations to include the most obvious: innate error of transcription and translation.
Well I have seen no evidence that convinces me. The latest and supposedly greatest theory is neo darwinism. Sorry but that theory is not possible. Mutations can't do what evolutionist need for macro evolution to occur. See Dr. Spetners arguments against neo darwinism that I posted.
This issue doesn't hang on convincing you as far as the rest of the world is concerned. You can believe what you want, but you aren't offering any coherent objection that anyone that understands the issue is going to pay attention too.
I have no idea what "Neo Darwinism" is. Do you mean the "modern synthesis"?
It is the preferred theory of macro evolution ,with the engine being natural selection and mutations. But as I see from stats that a lot are jumping to or extrapolating from punctuated equilibrium.
Gene deletion is not a barrier to the accumulation of additional genetic information in incremental steps over hundreds of thousands of generations.
Fail.
>>>>
The only way for new information to affect the off spring is sexual reproduction. Gene depletion occurs because during breeding information is bred out not new information in. So by gene depletion results in the gene pool getting smaller and smaller to the point that there is only information left to reproduce what the parents are. Please forgive typos I am outside on my smart phone can't see what I'm writing very well when my computer gets up and running I will show that the gene pool gets smaller it does not accumulate more information.
That is completely absurd. During reproduction, a unique diploid genome is created by matching up two haploid cells. How could you say that doesn't create new information? Furthermore, any novel mutations in those haploid cells are passed on in addition to the genetic material from the parents.
When are you gonna respond to the flies that were introduced to radiation ?
You realize that radiation tends to be detrimental to the genome by causing thymine dimers and that there are a multitude of other ways to have mutations to include the most obvious: innate error of transcription and translation.
That wad the excuse given when they saw the result of the mutations. Yes there are other ways to bring on mutations but we can't seem to get past the fact that all mutations are the result of a loss of information or rearranged information and that is what the mutations of the flies also shown. So it didn't matter that we used the radiation. But I was testing the genius and he like he normally does couldn't find a quick answer on Google.
That is completely absurd. During reproduction, a unique diploid genome is created by matching up two haploid cells. How could you say that doesn't create new information? Furthermore, any novel mutations in those haploid cells are passed on in addition to the genetic material from the parents.
Tried this argument too. He doesnt get that sperm and egg cells dont contain the entire genetic blueprint of the organism they come from. Hes gonna think your trying to confuse him by using terms like haploid and diploid. All you can really do is sit back in amazement of someone that really doesnt understand how things work at a basic level.
The fact that offspring are not clones of parents should be sufficient to show him how silly his logic is.
Furthermore, look at the "founder's effect" and why certain Jewish Communities have a large percentage of Tay-Sachs (much larger then the general population). Tay-Sachs, though detrimental is preserved in the gene pool. The same with Sickle Cell Disease.
After a while it gets silly. I am far beyond trying to convince people, but they could at least make coherent arguments.
This issue doesn't hang on convincing you as far as the rest of the world is concerned. You can believe what you want, but you aren't offering any coherent objection that anyone that understands the issue is going to pay attention too.
I have no idea what "Neo Darwinism" is. Do you mean the "modern synthesis"?
It is the preferred theory of macro evolution ,with the engine being natural selection and mutations. But as I see from stats that a lot are jumping to or extrapolating from punctuated equilibrium.
Didnt we already talk about your little Theory of Puncuated Equilibrium? You dont understand it. Heres a quote from the person that created it, Jay Gould:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistswhether through design or stupidity, I do not knowas admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
"Gould's sympathetic treatment of Richard Goldschmidt,[31] the controversial geneticist who advocated the idea of "hopeful monsters," only exacerbated the matter. Which lead some biologists to conclude that Gould's punctuations were occurring in single-generation jumps.[32][33][34][35] This interpretation has frequently been exploited by creationists to mischaracterize the weakness of the paleontological record, and to portray contemporary evolutionary biology as advancing neo-saltationism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-36
Tried this argument too. He doesnt get that sperm and egg cells dont contain the entire genetic blueprint of the organism they come from. Hes gonna think your trying to confuse him by using terms like haploid and diploid. All you can really do is sit back in amazement of someone that really doesnt understand how things work at a basic level.
The fact that offspring are not clones of parents should be sufficient to show him how silly his logic is.
Furthermore, look at the "founder's effect" and why certain Jewish Communities have a large percentage of Tay-Sachs (much larger then the general population). Tay-Sachs, though detrimental is preserved in the gene pool. The same with Sickle Cell Disease.
After a while it gets silly. I am far beyond trying to convince people, but they could at least make coherent arguments.
where did I ever say they were clones. What I have stated and very clearly,I have said there is diversity within a gene pool ,but the offspring will only be what information allows from the gene pool. A dog has the genetic information of a dog. A human has genetic information to produce a human.
It is the preferred theory of macro evolution ,with the engine being natural selection and mutations. But as I see from stats that a lot are jumping to or extrapolating from punctuated equilibrium.
Didnt we already talk about your little Theory of Puncuated Equilibrium? You dont understand it. Heres a quote from the person that created it, Jay Gould:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistswhether through design or stupidity, I do not knowas admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
"Gould's sympathetic treatment of Richard Goldschmidt,[31] the controversial geneticist who advocated the idea of "hopeful monsters," only exacerbated the matter. Which lead some biologists to conclude that Gould's punctuations were occurring in single-generation jumps.[32][33][34][35] This interpretation has frequently been exploited by creationists to mischaracterize the weakness of the paleontological record, and to portray contemporary evolutionary biology as advancing neo-saltationism."
Don't understand it
The fact that offspring are not clones of parents should be sufficient to show him how silly his logic is.
Furthermore, look at the "founder's effect" and why certain Jewish Communities have a large percentage of Tay-Sachs (much larger then the general population). Tay-Sachs, though detrimental is preserved in the gene pool. The same with Sickle Cell Disease.
After a while it gets silly. I am far beyond trying to convince people, but they could at least make coherent arguments.
Yup. I keep getting accused of being incoherent because they cant understand what im saying. He just keeps repeating that information has to be "bred out" of an organism, which makes no sense and doesnt happen. Its delusional
Goodness! Our chromosomes are shortening!
The fact that offspring are not clones of parents should be sufficient to show him how silly his logic is.
Furthermore, look at the "founder's effect" and why certain Jewish Communities have a large percentage of Tay-Sachs (much larger then the general population). Tay-Sachs, though detrimental is preserved in the gene pool. The same with Sickle Cell Disease.
After a while it gets silly. I am far beyond trying to convince people, but they could at least make coherent arguments.
where did I ever say they were clones. What I have stated and very clearly,I have said there is diversity within a gene pool ,but the offspring will only be what information allows from the gene pool. A dog has the genetic information of a dog. A human has genetic information to produce a human.
Yes and thats totally irrelevant either way. No one is saying a dog can produce anything other than a dog. Were saying that 100,000 years from now what they call "dogs" could very well be an entirely different species from what we call dogs now, unable to even mate with one another. All because of 10,000 generations of random mutation, guided by competition in the environment. Of course theyre going to look similar. But they maybe have diversified significantly. Not maybe. Will.
Yup. I keep getting accused of being incoherent because they cant understand what im saying. He just keeps repeating that information has to be "bred out" of an organism, which makes no sense and doesnt happen. Its delusional
Goodness! Our chromosomes are shortening!
How does a gene pool get smaller ?
where did I ever say they were clones. What I have stated and very clearly,I have said there is diversity within a gene pool ,but the offspring will only be what information allows from the gene pool. A dog has the genetic information of a dog. A human has genetic information to produce a human.
Yes and thats totally irrelevant either way. No one is saying a dog can produce anything other than a dog. Were saying that 100,000 years from now what they call "dogs" could very well be an entirely different species from what we call dogs now, unable to even mate with one another. All because of 10,000 generations of random mutation, guided by competition in the environment. Of course theyre going to look similar. But they maybe have diversified significantly. Not maybe. Will.
could change,that sounds reliable. I will post evidence if I can tomorrow to show this what happens after an organism has supposedly been on this planet. Remember the coelacanth fish and the change it showed after 370 million years
Yes and thats totally irrelevant either way. No one is saying a dog can produce anything other than a dog. Were saying that 100,000 years from now what they call "dogs" could very well be an entirely different species from what we call dogs now, unable to even mate with one another. All because of 10,000 generations of random mutation, guided by competition in the environment. Of course theyre going to look similar. But they maybe have diversified significantly. Not maybe. Will.
could change,that sounds reliable. I will post evidence if I can tomorrow to show this what happens after an organism has supposedly been on this planet. Remember the coelacanth fish and the change it showed after 370 million years
Wow. Still quoting the coelacanth even though i acknowledged that i had no idea what i was talking about there. Why havent you addressed the Eryops, which is what i should have claimed in the first place.
Lol if were going to dig up stupid things the other person has said your gonna look bad....
Remember how the laws of physics "could" have been different in the past? And how human DNA "could" have been perfect? And how atoms "could" have decayed differently.
"could, that sounds reliable."
Cripes.
It's like having someone yell at me, "You're not a man! You're not a man!" when I've already said, "I'm a woman".
this was for another reason. The point I was making they said said that through their dating method it was like 370 million years old and it went extinct 70 million years ago. But they discovered it in 1938 and its been observed in the wild since. Marine biologist swam with up in Canada. Oh and all that time and it showed no change from the first fossil of one was discovered. It's all fantasy my friend get over it.Yes and thats totally irrelevant either way. No one is saying a dog can produce anything other than a dog. Were saying that 100,000 years from now what they call "dogs" could very well be an entirely different species from what we call dogs now, unable to even mate with one another. All because of 10,000 generations of random mutation, guided by competition in the environment. Of course theyre going to look similar. But they maybe have diversified significantly. Not maybe. Will.
could change,that sounds reliable. I will post evidence if I can tomorrow to show this what happens after an organism has supposedly been on this planet. Remember the coelacanth fish and the change it showed after 370 million years
Wow. Still quoting the coelacanth even though i acknowledged that i had no idea what i was talking about there. Why havent you addressed the Eryops, which is what i should have claimed in the first place.
Lol if were going to dig up stupid things the other person has said your gonna look bad....
Remember how the laws of physics "could" have been different in the past? And how human DNA "could" have been perfect? And how atoms "could" have decayed differently.
"could, that sounds reliable."
this was for another reason. The point I was making they said said that through their dating method it was like 370 million years old and it went extinct 70 million years ago. But they discovered it in 1938 and its been observed in the wild since. Marine biologist swam with up in Canada. Oh and all that time and it showed no change from the first fossil of one was discovered. It's all fantasy my friend get over it.could change,that sounds reliable. I will post evidence if I can tomorrow to show this what happens after an organism has supposedly been on this planet. Remember the coelacanth fish and the change it showed after 370 million years
Wow. Still quoting the coelacanth even though i acknowledged that i had no idea what i was talking about there. Why havent you addressed the Eryops, which is what i should have claimed in the first place.
Lol if were going to dig up stupid things the other person has said your gonna look bad....
Remember how the laws of physics "could" have been different in the past? And how human DNA "could" have been perfect? And how atoms "could" have decayed differently.
"could, that sounds reliable."
YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE EVOLUTION AS NOBODY HAS DENIED IT.
And what you CAN'T prove is that evolution has anything to do with diverse species.
