Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[ding]

It's mind blowing how evolution explodes across a species all at once in unison to create a new species.

That's because is doesn't ... it starts with a single mutation in a single individual ... only this individual's offspring will carry the improved genetic material ... IF this mutation improves reproductive capacity, THEN the mutation will eventually spread throughout the population ... and this takes many many generations ...

That doesn't seem to be what the fossil record suggests. Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record.

 

[james bond]

That's because is doesn't ... it starts with a single mutation in a single individual ... only this individual's offspring will carry the improved genetic material ... IF this mutation improves reproductive capacity, THEN the mutation will eventually spread throughout the population ... and this takes many many generations ...

Um... natural selection isn't evolution. It does not happen b/c of the fairy tale of mutation. It happens fairly rapidly from the filtering of the genetic information that already exists and we can observe it. A good example, one can observe is natural selection of plants as it changes rapidly to their environment.

 

[Ringtone]

What, exactly, is ''the standard model regarding gene duplication''? Is that a slogan you stole from Harun Yahya?

Thank you for confirming precisely what I suspected. You are a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge or understanding. Aside from the fact that I just defined the standard/classical model of gene duplication, you seemed to have forgotten the contents of your very own copy-and-paste when you cited "The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations", a paper which I, unlike you, Ms. Copy-and-Paste, read many years ago and understand.

I think you better review your own citation in post #126. I knew you didn't really understand it given that you merely implied, sans any explication, that it falsified my previous observation, when in fact it affirmed it, but how did you manage to not retain its contents?

I got to tell ya, between you, Hollie, and James, it's been a real hoot today. Of course, abu afak's ignorance regarding the origin of the self-replicating strands of amyloid protein and the ramifications thereof was pretty funny too.

By the way, I had already read the paper reported on in the article abu afak cited too. I keep myself abreast of new developments in abiogenetic research.

I’ll take your usual sidestep around another completely ignorant comment about something you call “the standard model regarding gene duplication'' as just another gaffe in a long line of gaffes.

It's YOUR post (post #126), dummy, not mine, in which the classical model of gene duplication, as opposed to the DDC model of gene duplication, is firstly referred to as "the standard scenario". So now we see that you didn't only fail to understand your copy-and-paste response to my original prose of first-hand knowledge, but that you didn't go back and read your copy-and-paste as I advised you to do. Further, I didn't write in the above the standard model, but the standard/classical model per your post and for your benefit.

 

[Hollie]

N

That's because is doesn't ... it starts with a single mutation in a single individual ... only this individual's offspring will carry the improved genetic material ... IF this mutation improves reproductive capacity, THEN the mutation will eventually spread throughout the population ... and this takes many many generations ...

Um... natural selection isn't evolution. It does not happen b/c of the fairy tale of mutation. It happens fairly rapidly from the filtering of the genetic information that already exists and we can observe it. A good example, one can observe is natural selection of plants as it changes rapidly to their environment.

I'm curious to know how you explain your conspiracy theories about natural selection somehow not being a part of biological evolution when the data clearly and demonstrably refutes your conspiracy theory.

 

[Hollie]

What, exactly, is ''the standard model regarding gene duplication''? Is that a slogan you stole from Harun Yahya?

Thank you for confirming precisely what I suspected. You are a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge or understanding. Aside from the fact that I just defined the standard/classical model of gene duplication, you seemed to have forgotten the contents of your very own copy-and-paste when you cited "The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations", a paper which I, unlike you, Ms. Copy-and-Paste, read many years ago and understand.

I think you better review your own citation in post #126. I knew you didn't really understand it given that you merely implied, sans any explication, that it falsified my previous observation, when in fact it affirmed it, but how did you manage to not retain its contents?

I got to tell ya, between you, Hollie, and James, it's been a real hoot today. Of course, abu afak's ignorance regarding the origin of the self-replicating strands of amyloid protein and the ramifications thereof was pretty funny too.

By the way, I had already read the paper reported on in the article abu afak cited too. I keep myself abreast of new developments in abiogenetic research.

I’ll take your usual sidestep around another completely ignorant comment about something you call “the standard model regarding gene duplication'' as just another gaffe in a long line of gaffes.

It's YOUR post (post #126), dummy, not mine, in which the classical model of gene duplication, as opposed to the DDC model of gene duplication, is firstly referred to as "the standard scenerior". So now we see that you didn't only fail to understand your copy-and-paste response to my original prose of first-hand knowledge, but that you didn't go back and read your copy-and-paste as I advised you to do. Further, I didn't write in the above the standard model, but the standard/classical model per your post and for your benefit.

I can see you're angry and emotive but your outbursts are merely an attempt to sidestep explaining what your invented "standard model regarding gene duplication'', actually is.

A citation from the Disco'tute perhaps?

 

[Ringtone]

Gene duplication adds information.

On the classical model of gene duplication: new information?! Are you sure? Don't you mean adaptively new/enhanced functions?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It happens fairly rapidly from the filtering of the genetic information that already exists and we can observe it.

Obviously. What was filtered out to create nylonase?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Gene duplication adds information.

On the classical model of gene duplication: new information?! Are you sure? Don't you mean new/enhanced functions?

On the classical model of gene duplication: new information?!

A duplicated gene isn't new information?

What if the original gene now mutates?

Is that new information?

Oops, both genes mutate, new information yet?

Don't you mean new/enhanced functions?

Do new genes allow new functions?

 

[Hollie]

Gene duplication adds information.

On the classical model of gene duplication: new information?! Are you sure? Don't you mean new/enhanced functions?

On the classical model of gene duplication: new information?!

A duplicated gene isn't new information?

What if the original gene now mutates?

Is that new information?

Oops, both genes mutate, new information yet?

Don't you mean new/enhanced functions?

Do new genes allow new functions?

What does the Bible tell us about gene function?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

. If I was an atheist, then I'd have to question abiogenesis as something people thought happen like spontaneous generation,

Hahahhaha


So if you wer an atheist, what magic would you propose for abiogenesis?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's mind blowing how evolution explodes across a species all at once in unison to create a new species.

That would still take quite a bit of time, compared to our short lifetimes. But yes, it is fascinating. But understandable. If a trait makes some individuals much more likely to breed, then it (dominance of new traits over a population) could happen relatively quickly. In this way two isolated populations of one species could relatively quickly diverge into two species.

 

[Ringtone]

What, exactly, is ''the standard model regarding gene duplication''? Is that a slogan you stole from Harun Yahya?

Thank you for confirming precisely what I suspected. You are a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge or understanding. Aside from the fact that I just defined the standard/classical model of gene duplication, you seemed to have forgotten the contents of your very own copy-and-paste when you cited "The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations", a paper which I, unlike you, Ms. Copy-and-Paste, read many years ago and understand.

I think you better review your own citation in post #126. I knew you didn't really understand it given that you merely implied, sans any explication, that it falsified my previous observation, when in fact it affirmed it, but how did you manage to not retain its contents?

I got to tell ya, between you, Hollie, and James, it's been a real hoot today. Of course, abu afak's ignorance regarding the origin of the self-replicating strands of amyloid protein and the ramifications thereof was pretty funny too.

By the way, I had already read the paper reported on in the article abu afak cited too. I keep myself abreast of new developments in abiogenetic research.

I’ll take your usual sidestep around another completely ignorant comment about something you call “the standard model regarding gene duplication'' as just another gaffe in a long line of gaffes.

It's YOUR post (post #126), dummy, not mine, in which the classical model of gene duplication, as opposed to the DDC model of gene duplication, is firstly referred to as "the standard scenario". So now we see that you didn't only fail to understand your copy-and-paste response to my original prose of first-hand knowledge, but that you didn't go back and read your copy-and-paste as I advised you to do. Further, I didn't write in the above the standard model, but the standard/classical model per your post and for your benefit.

I can see you're angry and emotive but your outbursts are merely an attempt to sidestep explaining what your invented "standard model regarding gene duplication'', actually is.

A citation from the Disco'tute perhaps?

Well, I see that you want to do back to my poetry. I knew you liked it!

Let us go then, you and me,
And stroll beneath a cloudy sea
As evening spreads across its face like a toothless grin.
Let us go a-meandering down narrow-minded suburban lanes,
Silky slick with sullen rains
And hemmed in by redundant four-bedroom stalls and grated sewage drains;
Past the immaculate parks and the quaint, steepled churches,

the lofty perches,​

Where the vagabond Riffraff lurches in the pristine shadows:
A restless Crowd that chases dreams of easy grace and meadows,
And sings a melancholy hymn, a petulant brew, that lingers at your nervebone.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record.

But is seen. Also: abrupt speciation with gradual evolution can occur. Of course" "gradual" is relative and subjective.

 

[ding]

Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record.

But is seen. Also: abrupt speciation with gradual evolution can occur. Of course" "gradual" is relative and subjective.

But not the rule. The rule is abrupt. Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record. Gradual evolution is the exception to the rule as observed in the fossil record.

 

[ding]

It's mind blowing how evolution explodes across a species all at once in unison to create a new species.

That would still take quite a bit of time, compared to our short lifetimes. But yes, it is fascinating. But understandable. If a trait makes some individuals much more likely to breed, then it (dominance of new traits over a population) could happen relatively quickly. In this way two isolated populations of one species could relatively quickly diverge into two species.

I don't believe so. All it takes is one generation. Stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record.

But is seen. Also: abrupt speciation with gradual evolution can occur. Of course" "gradual" is relative and subjective.

But not the rule. The rule is abrupt. Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record. Gradual evolution is the exception to the rule as observed in the fossil record.

Yes, but "abrupt" can literally mean 100,000 years. Also, when teo isolated populations diverge gradually, you will have the case where individuals from pop A and individuals of the new, distinct species from pop B are found very close to one another, temporally, in the fossil record. All very cool stuff. It seems to be one of the forefronts of biology today. Not disagreeing with you. It shows us what it shows us.

 

[Hollie]

What, exactly, is ''the standard model regarding gene duplication''? Is that a slogan you stole from Harun Yahya?

Thank you for confirming precisely what I suspected. You are a copy-and-paste evodelutionist with little real knowledge or understanding. Aside from the fact that I just defined the standard/classical model of gene duplication, you seemed to have forgotten the contents of your very own copy-and-paste when you cited "The preservation of duplicate genes by complementary degenerative mutations", a paper which I, unlike you, Ms. Copy-and-Paste, read many years ago and understand.

I think you better review your own citation in post #126. I knew you didn't really understand it given that you merely implied, sans any explication, that it falsified my previous observation, when in fact it affirmed it, but how did you manage to not retain its contents?

I got to tell ya, between you, Hollie, and James, it's been a real hoot today. Of course, abu afak's ignorance regarding the origin of the self-replicating strands of amyloid protein and the ramifications thereof was pretty funny too.

By the way, I had already read the paper reported on in the article abu afak cited too. I keep myself abreast of new developments in abiogenetic research.

I’ll take your usual sidestep around another completely ignorant comment about something you call “the standard model regarding gene duplication'' as just another gaffe in a long line of gaffes.

It's YOUR post (post #126), dummy, not mine, in which the classical model of gene duplication, as opposed to the DDC model of gene duplication, is firstly referred to as "the standard scenario". So now we see that you didn't only fail to understand your copy-and-paste response to my original prose of first-hand knowledge, but that you didn't go back and read your copy-and-paste as I advised you to do. Further, I didn't write in the above the standard model, but the standard/classical model per your post and for your benefit.

I can see you're angry and emotive but your outbursts are merely an attempt to sidestep explaining what your invented "standard model regarding gene duplication'', actually is.

A citation from the Disco'tute perhaps?

Well, I see that you want to do back to my poetry. I knew you liked it!

Let us go then, you and me,
And stroll beneath a cloudy sea
As evening spreads across its face like a toothless grin.
Let us go a-meandering down narrow-minded suburban lanes,
Silky slick with sullen rains
And hemmed in by redundant four-bedroom stalls and grated sewage drains;
Past the immaculate parks and the quaint, steepled churches,

the lofty perches,​

Where the vagabond Riffraff lurches in the pristine shadows:
A restless Crowd that chases dreams of easy grace and meadows,
And sings a melancholy hymn, a petulant brew, that lingers at your nervebone.

A rather poor attempt to sidestep refutations to your appeals to magic and supernaturalism.

 

[ding]

Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record.

But is seen. Also: abrupt speciation with gradual evolution can occur. Of course" "gradual" is relative and subjective.

But not the rule. The rule is abrupt. Gradual evolution is seldom seen in the fossil record. Gradual evolution is the exception to the rule as observed in the fossil record.

Yes, but "abrupt" can literally mean 100,000 years. Also, when teo isolated populations diverge gradually, you will have the case where individuals from pop A and individuals of the new, distinct species from pop B are found very close to one another, temporally, in the fossil record. All very cool stuff. It seems to be one of the forefronts of biology today. Not disagreeing with you. It shows us what it shows us.

Again... I don't think so. Stasis dominates the history of most fossil species. What you want to believe is not supported by the fossil record.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't believe so. All it takes is one generation

I would be shocked to see or hear any scientist make this claim. One?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

But you just said, "most", so we agree.