Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis 2

Pages: (167) < ... 157 158 159 160 161 [162] 163 164 165 166 167 ... >

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,10:28    SteveS I would like to nominate AFD for the AtBC "Larry Farfaman Biology Award" -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,10:33    Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,07:36) That's not the question, Eric.  I asked for scientific support for your two current objections:  1) That bottlenecks eliminate diversity, and 2) That 4500 years is not enough time to achieve massive diversity.  I supplied you with scientific refutation of these two objections. Interesting. Dave thinks he's "refuted" the idea that "genetic bottlenecks eliminate diversity." Really, Dave. In that case, what do you think it is that "genetic bottlenecks" do? -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,10:38    I am still fascinated by the bizarre behavior the sacrificial creationist displays. Even after quotemining shamelessly and writing that quoting out of context is nothing more than lying, even after using defeat as a claim to victory and even after the embarrassment of the baboon dogs -baboon dogs fer crissake- he still comes back thinking he is saying something. I'm telling yall, you really need a couple of freshman level physical science classes or the ability to read a WHOLE book or ten on the subject to be able to have this conversation. The dinglefritz oozes between the gaps of knowlege like the beer in the glass full of rocks and sand- only able to support his delusions through severe projection, denial and a complete regression into Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It seemed poignant to me that he wouldn't ever walk out into an open field to debate me on any topic even though I offered to take either side. The exposure risks outweigh the opportunity. That sums up the whole anti-school pretty well I think. I am reminded of the old saying: Don't try to teach a pig to dance. It will frustrate you and annoy the pig. His engagement with Eric based on the mistaken idea that eric was the weak link is also interesting. Is anyone here familiar with the psychological concept of the surround? Very strange. Also very illuminating behavior. Dave, Your weakness of mind and strength of stupidity is astounding. I will open up a thread on core samples at brainwashedgod.blogspot.com today or tomorrow because I would like to see how you would refute the evidence but I am doubtful you can rise to the occasion. Scary, nice poem, this thread definitely deserves an epitaph. I think you did well. John Locke's epitaph also seems somehow appropriate given Dave's radical crash and burn on the founders: "Stop, Traveller! Near this place lieth John Locke. If you ask what kind of a man he was, he answers that he lived content with his own small fortune. Bred a scholar, he made his learning subservient only to the cause of truth. This thou will learn from his writings, which will show thee everything else concerning him, with greater truth, than the suspect praises of an epitaph. His virtues, indeed, if he had any, were too little for him to propose as matter of praise to himself, or as an example to thee. Let his vices be buried together. As to an example of manners, if you seek that, you have it in the Gospels; of vices, to wish you have one nowhere; if mortality, certainly, (and may it profit thee), thou hast one here and everywhere." -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,10:39    Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 02 2007,10:33) Really, Dave. In that case, what do you think it is that "genetic bottlenecks" do? Provide a place for genetic bottlescarves, of course. (Another one bites the dust. Tick tock, Dave.)

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,11:13    Incorygible ...     Quote Of course, read my actual post and you'll see that my question was "by what objective standard you can claim that the genetic diversity found in existing animal families is a mere recombination of the genomes of two original founders, but that the diversity found within the great apes (1% -- how can you forget?) -- including HUMANS -- could not possibly have arisen from the same miraculous spring of "heterozygosity" that you seem to think solves your problems?" See...nothing to do with genetic distances among dogs vs. distances among humans/other apes. Quote To demonstrate this yourself, I challenge you to try to get some human-like civil rights passed in Congress for Apes. i.e. limited Social Security benefits, maybe some educational grants, etc.  Good luck! Well, that's rational. Science, afdave-style, eh? I tell you what -- you use politics to answer questions of relatedness, and I'll use DNA, m'kay? After all, your method tells me that embryos/fetuses with no civil rights and children with no Social Security benefits or grant eligibility aren't human. OK, OK, I'll quit trying to be funny and answer the question. What objective standard?  Don't sequence differences work pretty well?  Aren't all dog/wolf/coyote sequence differences miniscule?  I don't know the number, but isn't it less that 1/2 of a percent?  And I thought I read recently that humans and apes are more like 6% different now that they are figuring out that "silent DNA" isn't really silent. ****************************************** Eric ...   Quote Interesting. Dave thinks he's "refuted" the idea that "genetic bottlenecks eliminate diversity." Really, Dave. In that case, what do you think it is that "genetic bottlenecks" do? Well, they eliminate some mutant alleles (minimal reduction in phenotypic diversity), and, depending on H, eliminate normal alleles also, which of course, is why you would select a pair with a fair amount of heterozygosity.  But remember, it's not ME saying genetic diversity can be preserved and even increased after a bottleneck.  It's Carson ... a non-YEC scientist who you should trust.  Why do you not? I think I see where you are having difficulty understanding my point, though.  I will address this in more detail tomorrow. ****************************************** Improv ... It's funny that you think the world view of the greatest scientist in history--Sir Isaac Newton--is a "problem."  No my friend, Darwinism is the problem, a 150 year "black eye" on the otherwise beautiful face of science. But, as my new avatar highlights, there is hope for the prospect of banishing that old impostor called Darwinism into well deserved oblivion! -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,11:18    Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I find it interesting that we all agree the only thing Dave has won was the point about AiG's finances and Dave immediately creates an avatar to celebrate his win. If Dave "won" all those other arguments, why didn't he create a Portuguese avatar or a dog avatar or a Grand Canyon avatar? Again, I'm probably reading too much into it. Incorygible and Improvius – Sorry I missed you two as well as Argy with my poem.  I’ll put in an edit. k.e. and BWE, thanks for the kudos.   It was fun to write.

incorygible Posts: 374 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,11:44    Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,11:13) Incorygible ...           Quote Of course, read my actual post and you'll see that my question was "by what objective standard you can claim that the genetic diversity found in existing animal families is a mere recombination of the genomes of two original founders, but that the diversity found within the great apes (1% -- how can you forget?) -- including HUMANS -- could not possibly have arisen from the same miraculous spring of "heterozygosity" that you seem to think solves your problems?" See...nothing to do with genetic distances among dogs vs. distances among humans/other apes. OK, OK, I'll quit trying to be funny and answer the question. You might want to read it first.     Quote What objective standard?  Don't sequence differences work pretty well? Indeed.     Quote Aren't all dog/wolf/coyote sequence differences miniscule? Yes. Which really makes them a rather poor example of genetic diversity emerging from small founding populations, eh? (You do know the difference between genotypes and phenotypes, right?) So if I was arguing that genetic diversity could arise rapidly (e.g., the genetic diversity we find among species of the same supposed 'kind' today), dogs certainly would not be my case study of choice. Of course, I'm not arguing that...     Quote I don't know the number, but isn't it less that 1/2 of a percent? Could very well be (and almost certainly is if we're talking genome-wide divergence). Don't know, don't care, wasn't the question I asked.     Quote And I thought I read recently that humans and apes are more like 6% different... Sounds about right for the current comprehensive figure...     Quote now that they are figuring out that "silent DNA" isn't really silent. ...not that this has anything to do with it whatsoever. Dave, how could you have read what I wrote (even just enough to enjoy it) and yet not notice what I said. My question was not "compare the genetic distance between dogs (same species) to the genetic distance between e.g., humans and chimps. It was to compare the genetic distances found within animal families to those found among great ape species. After all, you have stated (read: parroted) that the created "kind" was probably on the level of the family. You know what a family is, right? (Probably not, since this is a trick question that answers itself.) Why not pick one and compare the genetic distance for species within it. (Maybe start with Hominidae? Just a hint.) Edit: Actually, with so few posts left and Dave's track record, maybe the above hint is too obtuse for wee Dave. Dave, Hominidae is a FAMILY consisting of humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans. You have stated that the created kinds were probably on the level of the FAMILY. Humans and chimps are actually two VERY CLOSELY RELATED species of the SAME FAMILY (much closer than the average distance between family members if we were to pick two species at random from some shared family). I asked for an OBJECTIVE STANDARD (no scripture, no handwaving about "non-biological" differences) by which we could confidently separate humans from (other) apes and yet still be able to group all those emerging family members after the flood into the same 'kind' in order to keep the ark's passenger list feasible. You suggested sequence differences, and I would agree. Problem is, those aren't going to separate humans and chimps (they would separate out the 'rangs and gorillas into separate kinds first). And if you want to use a figure of ~5% sequence divergence for your delineation of kinds, you can't fit the planet's biodiversity on the boat. You wouldn't be trying some special pleading when it comes to humans, would you? Because that's not allowed in an objective standard (or in rational debate). So, if we figure that 'kind' ~ biological family, then it stands to reason that Adam and Eve (and by extension, God, given that whole "in His image" thing) were probably hairy apes, based on the shared characteristics of surviving members of this 'kind'. There's also a good chance that they were largely arboreal, which explains how they reached God's untouchable fruit (not to mention fruit-monopolization itself). No way of knowing if they shared the same fecal fascination exhibited by apes in captivity (does the garden count as captivity?).

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,12:53    Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 02 2007,11:18) If Dave "won" all those other arguments, why didn't he create a Portuguese avatar or a dog avatar or a Grand Canyon avatar? 'cause he doesn't know how to draw a Portugese Dog? -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,13:02    Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2007,13:53) 'cause he doesn't know how to draw a Portugese Dog? I will at least say this:  The avatar makes his point pretty clear--clearer than anything else I've seen. You gotta give him kudos for that.

dgszweda Posts: 34 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,13:03    Man, you guys must have nothing to do over the holidays.  So many posts, it is difficult to go through them all or even stay abreast of what is going on.  I think there were three questions out there for me, so I will post responses, but I am not so sure if I captured all of the questions: 1) Question #1: Don't blame the teachers.  Well I wasn't blaming the teachers, they aren't the ones writing the textbooks.  I was making a statement that so many of you are upset with having ID taught in schools because of the lousy science behind it, yet the evolution that you hold dear is being slopply taught because of the poor curriculum.  A lot of the curriculum contradicts itself, teachers aren't trained enough to understand and teach it, and the evolutionary hypothesis' are updated so frequently that often times the information in the textbooks is out of date.  So I am not sure either stance is good.  Don't teach ID because of lousy science, but please continue to teach lousy evolution because of the curriculum. 2) Question 2: If the universe is so ordered why is randomness so prevalant in Quantum Mechanics .  There are these randomness calculations in Quantum Mechanics, I agree.  But the randomness is more of because of our inability to calculate or understand the variables than it is of true randomness.  Einstein said "I at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice." (Letter to Max Born 12-Dec-1926, quoted in Einstein: The Life and Times ISBN 0-380-44123-3).  Quantum Mechanics is much more complex than to say that randomness exists and is proved by Quantum Mechanics.  The goal of QM is still the unification theory and there is still much, much understanding on how randomness is associated more with the viewing of the object than with the object itself.  Randomness is present in QM because of our inability to calculate the actuality.  We must rest on a probability.  An example I used often was with a ball on a slope and a pencil on it's head.  If I place a ball on a sloping board, Newtonian physics will explain that the ball will fall to the direction of the floor.  Gravity is a macro force and is well understood and we are only examining one variable.  Now we look at a pencil and try to stand it on it's head.  It will fall in one direction, and only one direction.  But we cannot predict which direction it will fall.  Our gravitational calculations will not work they are not deterministic for this action.  That is because we are dealing with many more forces with less understanding and less of an ability to measure them.  It could be the slight gradiations on the tip of the lead, a wind current, maybe even tidal forces.  Because we cannot calculate these forces, we will do a sampling of the falls, and then use that as a probability or a "randomness" of what will occur.  The current thinking is that we will either find these "hidden variable theories" which will continue to help us refine Quantum Mechanics, or that we will have to live with the randomness because of our inability to delve past it (uncertainty), which is held to more in Richard Feynman's book, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. 3) Comment #3: I don’t know if you realize this but there is NOT ONE person who has ANY CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER  that supports creationism. I am not sure why k.e. has to resort to vulgar name calling such as "Dickhead".  I thought we were all past 6th grade here.  Why can't the comments and responses be based on civilized responses.  The fact that someone believes something different from you shouldn't cause others to resort to ridicule.  Maybe this would be a good time to learn.  Even if you don't think someone understands what you are saying shouldn't force you to resort to name calling.  Maybe you should continue to understand what the thinking is. To answer your question.  Isaac Newton supported creationism.  I would hope that the father of calculus and obviously Newtonian Physics is credible.  If you look at today's world, there are such people as Edward Bourdreaux, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of New Orleans.  As far as credibility goes, Dr. Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the MRI scanner was a literal 6 day creationist.  The object of my response was not to list every available scientist.  I only needed to list one scientist with credibility to show your absolute statement in capitals was incorrect.  I hope that in the future if one of your relatives or yourself must use an MRI, that you either have a belief in the credibility of Dr. Damadian's invention or you avoid it for the "quack science" that it is. 4) Question #4 from PuckSR: How did the light from the stars reach Earth? That is the one of the points of perceived age.  My contention as well as YEC, is that God created the stars with their light shining on the earth already.  Even if the sun was shining on the earth the second He created it, it had a perceived age of at least 8 minutes.  Did God violate scientific laws?  Yes, but of course a creationists belief is that the laws were established by God and that God is omnipotent, and therefore can subvert His laws for His glory.  His laws for this physical realm (and yes I believe it is a finite closed system and not an open system) were fully established on the 6th day of creation.  Can I prove this scientifically.  No.  Is God a Liar as you state.  No.  Where did God state otherwise? Now I asked the question, why don't we see any evolutionary jumps between species right now?  A few of the responses I have heard are: 1)There is no selective advantage.  Do all evolutionary changes require with absolute certainty a selective advantage?  Does sexual enjoyment among humans relate to a selective advantage?  Animals do not share this enjoyment, yet produce just as many if not more young than humans.  Was sexual enjoyment an evolved trait.  On the flipside is homosexuality a practice that will disappear since it has no selective advantage.  Two partners who cannot produce offspring naturally should not be a selective advantage.   Some scientist claim that "Pleasure is nature's way of rewarding good behavior". (Dr. Jonathan Balcombe, "Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good", MacMillan 2006).  If the belief is that evolution is a random act with external influences that prefer selective advantages, than how does it reward good behavior?  How is good behavior a selective advantage unless it relies on some intelligence to guide the behavior. 2)the ancestor is no longer around For most hominid species it is unclear why they went extinct.  There are a lot of hypothesis, but very little conclusive evidences.  Such certainty is derived for why certain hominids were replaced by other hominids.  In total there are only about 1,400 hominid skulls that have been found, of which about 700 come from Magaliesberg region of Africa.  Not a very good sampling for 6-7 million years of evolution.  That isn't even a good sampling for a national election, let alone a 7 million year evolution span.  Some species such as Sahelanthropus tchadensis is based on a cranium a few fragments of a lower jaw bone and a few teeth.  Yet the species is created, fitted into the evolutionary chain and then used to support other arguments such as the new dating for when humans diverged from chimpanzees, which is used to base other hypothesis and on and on goes the building blocks.  Most early hominid species come from very few bone fragments and most features are developed as a result of indirect evidence.  Most of all of the early and mid hominids and many of the late hominids are based on just a few bones.  Forget full skeletons.  Yet with great certainty of a jaw bone and 3 teeth we can determine that they were a hominid and they went extinct due to X,Y,Z.....  The chimpanzees still exist so why don't we see any homo sapiens neanderthalensis around.  They were only around 30,000 years ago.  Neanderthalensis and sapien sapien exists together for at least 150,000 years.  In fact every single hominid overlapped others by as much as 100,000 years in many cases.  Why is there no overlap in this generation, or even close to any kind of overlap. I encourage you to truly examine the pictures of the entire bone collections of some of these hominid species and just logically think about whether they were even hominid or if there was enough there to even make a determination.  Ramapithecus was based on a few teeth, which 20 years later is beginning to be thought of as an extinct primate.  Most of the hominid species have only been developed based off a few fragments of bones discovered in the last 10-20 years.  Even Homo Erectus was basically only classified to be an earlier hominid because of it's cranial capacity.  Essentially three skulls are being used to create a new species, when it has been easily shown that the cranial capacity of Homo Erectus fits into the cranial capacity of some European groups.  I guess I miss how we can develop a whole species based on a few bones, when modern asians and modern Europeans share different characteristics in their facial and skull features.  If I found 5 asian skulls it would be unfair to characterize the entire modern human race based on those features.  It isn't representative of the human race.  So how can we take two partial skulls and 5 teeth and develop a species of hominids from it?

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,13:15    Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,14:03) 2) Question 2: If the universe is so ordered why is randomness so prevalant in Quantum Mechanics .  There are these randomness calculations in Quantum Mechanics, I agree.  But the randomness is more of because of our inability to calculate or understand the variables than it is of true randomness. The majority belief among physicists is that this is wrong, and the randomness of QM is true randomness. A minority of physicists holds out hope for a hidden variable theory.

dgszweda Posts: 34 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,13:18    Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 02 2007,13:15) Quote (dgszweda @ Jan. 02 2007,14:03) 2) Question 2: If the universe is so ordered why is randomness so prevalant in Quantum Mechanics .  There are these randomness calculations in Quantum Mechanics, I agree.  But the randomness is more of because of our inability to calculate or understand the variables than it is of true randomness. The majority belief among physicists is that this is wrong, and the randomness of QM is true randomness. A minority of physicists holds out hope for a hidden variable theory. Can you provide some quotes or sources for this?  I provided a quote for Feynman.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,13:22    Have you studied physics? I mean, other than reading pop sci books about it? EDIT: I'm moving the dgszweda stuff to its own thread.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,13:43    And while I'm here, Dave:  how much dog speciation in the last 500 years? -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,13:48    Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,09:13) Eric ...           Quote Interesting. Dave thinks he's "refuted" the idea that "genetic bottlenecks eliminate diversity." Really, Dave. In that case, what do you think it is that "genetic bottlenecks" do? Well, they eliminate some mutant alleles (minimal reduction in phenotypic diversity), and, depending on H, eliminate normal alleles also, which of course, is why you would select a pair with a fair amount of heterozygosity.  But remember, it's not ME saying genetic diversity can be preserved and even increased after a bottleneck.  It's Carson ... a non-YEC scientist who you should trust.  Why do you not? I think I see where you are having difficulty understanding my point, though.  I will address this in more detail tomorrow. Dave, you're just not getting it. When Carson is talking about genetic diversity recovering after a genetic bottleneck, he simply is not talking about the kind of genetic diversity you are. I don't distrust Carson, Dave; I distrust your totally wrong misinterpretation of what he's saying. You're talking about the amount of genetic diversity of—at minimum—the family level, if not the class or order level, not the species level, in order for you to get from your several thousand species to the several million species in existence today (I can see you didn't even touch my landfilling of your claim of 23,000 species today). You not talking about "preserving" diversity, Dave. You're talking about a staggering, explosive increase in diversity that makes the Cambrian explosion (which lasted two thousand times longer) look like a wet firecracker in comparison. And this statement:     Quote Well, they eliminate some mutant alleles (minimal reduction in phenotypic diversity), and, depending on H, eliminate normal alleles also, which of course, is why you would select a pair with a fair amount of heterozygosity. is verging on incomprehensibility. First, according to you, there should have been no mutant alleles before the flood, correct? Which makes one wonder why there would be any heterozygosity at all, but no matter. My question is, How does Noah tell by looking at it whether a particular critter (ant, beetle, flower, lobster) has high heterozygosity? Did he have a knowledge of genetics unknown until Gregor Mendel's time? And second, as I've pointed out to you to the point of exhaustion, the difference between minimal heterozygosity and maximal heterozygosity is too small to matter when you have a founding population of two individuals. As Lenny pointed out to you most recently, with two individuals you have at most four alleles for any locus. Without additional mutations in the future, how do you ever get more than four total alleles in the entire population of descendants? This is why the HLA-B gene presents such a crushing blow to your "hypothesis" with respect to genetic diversity. You started out, 4,500 years ago, with a maximum of 10 alleles (and it would probably have been significantly less). Today you have over 600 alleles. If they didn't come from mutations, Dave, where did they come from? Out of your butt? And you still haven't explained (or even addressed, or acknowledged) the problem your "genetic degeneration" argument, which predicts the mass extinction of all complex eukaryotes in less than a thousand years, presents for your "explosive increase in diversity" argument, which predicts the exact opposite. So which is it, Dave? Is biodiversity increasing? Or is it decreasing? Or is it doing both at the same time? And what evidence do you have that biodiversity has headed in either direction over the past 4,500 years? -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:12    Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 02 2007,13:02)   Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 02 2007,13:53) 'cause he doesn't know how to draw a Portugese Dog? I will at least say this:  The avatar makes his point pretty clear--clearer than anything else I've seen. You gotta give him kudos for that. Well it is certainly the clearest and most concise point from Dave, but I believe that the clearest and most concise point about Dave was this: Explanation of AFDave -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:20    Quote Today you have over 600 alleles. If they didn't come from mutations, Dave, where did they come from? Eric, he's already said they came from mutations. That was shortly before changing the subject and henceforth refusing to discuss it. -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:20    So Dave, just to make this simple for you, and before you waste a lot of your time trying to educate a dunce like me on how a genetic bottleneck won't prevent one "kind" from radiating into a thousand species in a few thousand years, let's try this: You accept that a diploid organism cannot have more than two alleles at a given locus, correct? [ ]Y [ ]N You accept, therefore, that a mating pair of diploid organisms cannot have more than four alleles for a given locus, correct? [ ]Y [ ]N Therefore, you accept that, without additional mutations, there cannot ever be any more than four, total, alleles for any given gene in any population that is descended from that initial breeding pair, correct? [ ]Y [ ]N I must warn you that failure to answer these three questions will be taken as an admission that you have absolutely no freaking idea what I'm talking about, and therefore don't have the knowledge of straightforward Medelian genetics that any seventh grader should have. I'm assuming I don't need to supply references for my first two assertions, correct? [ ]Y [ ]N Or do I need to prove to you that diploid organisms cannot have more than two alleles for any given gene, and that two plus two equals four? [ ]Y [ ]N -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:42    Quote (argystokes @ Jan. 02 2007,12:20)   Quote Today you have over 600 alleles. If they didn't come from mutations, Dave, where did they come from? Eric, he's already said they came from mutations. That was shortly before changing the subject and henceforth refusing to discuss it. Which, of course, directly contradicts his claim that "pre-existing variability" is a much greater source of genetic diversity than mutations are. But since 590 out of 600 alleles are from mutations, I guess he's wrong about that, unless you don't think that 590 is a majority of 600. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:43    Re "This is truly an historic document. " You misspelled hysteric.

Steviepinhead Posts: 532 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:48    Heh heh heh. Nice, Eric.   Even on its last gasps, this thread retains its own inimitable brand of humor. Humor in which poor davey has ever been the straight man (no assertion regarding your sexual preferences intended, davey, not to worry...), but humor nonetheless. Eric's latest is a wonderful example of (voice slows W A Y down and gets V E R Y deep) the "how simple do we have to make it for this doofus" brand of humor. No need to duck, davey.  I guarantee it'll go right over your head.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:07    Quote Heh heh heh. Nice, Eric.   Even on its last gasps, this thread retains its own inimitable brand of humor. Humor in which poor davey has ever been the straight man (no assertion regarding your sexual preferences intended, davey, not to worry...), but humor nonetheless. Eric's latest is a wonderful example of (voice slows W A Y down and gets V E R Y deep) the "how simple do we have to make it for this doofus" brand of humor. No need to duck, davey.  I guarantee it'll go right over your head. Yep!  Eric shot Davie down in flames, Davie's machine is just a smoking hole in the ground, and now Eric is strafing the wreckage.   -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:12    Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 02 2007,12:20) Or do I need to prove to you that diploid organisms cannot have more than two alleles for any given gene, and that two plus two equals four? [ ]Y [ ]N Before you answer this particular question, Dave, I should point out to you that if you do think a reference is needed here, it's pretty late in the game to be demanding support for what should have been a foundational issue at the very beginning of your "genetic richness" debate several months ago. Also, I never got an answer from you: do you now accept that the human HLA-B gene has at least 600 alleles, or don't you? -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:28    Dave says     Quote DEADMAN: [Dead silence on current debate. Changes subject.] "Dave, you need speciation for your theory, not just variation." [We have it. I will cover it here or somewhere.] Yet here is what I DID say:     Quote Your scenario calls for a small number of breeding pairs to give rise to millions ( yes, millions...you didn't include plants, bacteria or fungi) of SPECIES not varieties. I agree that SOME **less-complex rapidly breeding** species like drosophilia ( fruitflies) can successfully move through a bottleneck and diversify [IN VARIATION]...this is not in question... But you need SPECIES, and lots of them...NOT JUST VARIATIONAL DIVERSITY WITHIN A SPECIES. Dave says     Quote I am into EVIDENCE, not theory. Isn't that what scientists (even amateur ones like me) are supposed to be into? And the EVIDENCE says that "recombination does not create new variation", Darwinist wishful thinking notwithstanding. Well, then you should be able to give the evidence that actually supports your claims on all the subjects we've discussed on your thread...things like carbon dating being wrong ( which you claim is supported by some guy assuming variables without any underlying evidence at all) At any rate, Dave, I wanted to point out what is obvious to everyone else, but not to you: What Carson is dealing with is polygenic traits...traits that are differentialy affected/created by the  influences of MANY UNDERLYING GENES. Variation, following a bottleneck event or inbreeding is GENERALLY expected to decrease by a proportion F, the inbreeding coefficient of the population (WRIGHT, Sewall., 1951 The genetical structure of populations. Ann. Eugen. 15:323-354) When variation underlying a quantitative trait is controlled by POLYGENICALLY, by genes that act additively within and between loci, the additive genetic variance within a population **CAN** increase. (remember EPISTASIS, Dave?)   This phenomenon has been observed for: (1) morphometric traits (Bryant et al. 1986 ; Bryant  and Meffert 1995, Bryant and Meffert 1996) and (2) behavioral traits (Meffert and Bryant 1992; Meffert 1995) in the house fly, and for (3) fitness components in Drosophila melanogaster (Lopez-Fanjul and Villaverde 1989; Garcia et al. 1994) and Tribolium castaneum (Fernandez  et al. 1995). One explanation for the increased additive genetic variance following bottlenecks is dominance, the interaction between alleles within a locus. Alan Robertson (The Effect of Inbreeding on the Variation Due to Recessive Genes . Genetics. 1952 Mar;37(2):189–207.), showed that when genetic variance is caused by rare recessive genes, inbreeding or bottlenecks can temporarily increase the additive variance. Willis and Orr (1993) examined the effect of the degree of dominance on the expected additive variance following a bottleneck and found that a broad range of dominance coefficients could cause an increase in additive variance. Another explanation is epistasis, the interaction among loci. Theoretical work has shown that genetic drift during a bottleneck can "convert"  additive x additive [meaning additive TIMES additive, multiplying, in other words]  variance (Goodnight 1988; Whitlock et al. 1993) and other forms of epistatic variance (Cheverud and Routman 1996) into additive genetic variance. Thus, provided the proportion of epistatic variance in the ancestral population is high enough, a founder event may result in an increase in additive genetic variance. Bryant, Edwin H.; Combs, Lisa M.; McCommas, Steven A. Morphometric Differentiation among Experimental Lines of the Housefly in Relation to a Bottleneck. Genetics. 1986 Dec;114(4):1213–1223. Bryant, Edwin H.; McCommas, Steven A.; Combs, Lisa M. The Effect of an Experimental Bottleneck upon Quantitative Genetic Variation in the Housefly. Genetics. 1986 Dec;114(4):1191–1211. Bryant, E. H. and L. M. Meffert, 1995 An analysis of selectional response in relation to a population bottleneck. Evolution 49:626-634. Bryant, E. H. and L. M. Meffert, 1996 Nonadditive genetic structuring of morphometric variation in relation to a population bottleneck. Heredity 77:168-176. Cheverud, J. M. and E. J. Routman, 1996 Epistasis as a source of increased additive genetic variance at population bottlenecks. Evolution 50:1042-1051. Fernandez, A. and C. Lopez-Fanjul, 1996 Spontaneous mutational variances and covariances for fitness-related traits in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 143:829-837 Goodnight, C. J., 1988 Epistasis and the effect of founder events on the additive genetic variance. Evolution 42:441-454. Lopez-Fanjul, C. and A. Villaverde, 1989 Inbreeding increases genetic variance for viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1800-1804 Meffert , L. M., 1995 Bottleneck effects on genetic variance for courtship repertoire. Genetics 139:365-374 Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant, 1992 Divergent ambulatory and grooming behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 46:1399-1407. Whitlock, M. C., P. C. Phillips, and M. J. Wade, 1993 Gene interaction affects the additive genetic variance in subdivided populations with migration and extinction. Evolution 47:1758-1769. Willis, J. H. and H. A. Orr, 1993 Increased heritable variation following population bottlenecks: the role of dominance. Evolution 47:949-956. This is not NEW, Dave, it's been known or suspected for a long time...but it is LIMITED and doesn't give the kind of variation YOU need to sustain a "complex" species AND PRODUCE DAUGHTER SPECIES FROM A PAIR OF ORGANISMS, following a genetic bottleneck 2300 years ago, not **JUST** a "SMALL POPULATION" of MULTIPLE individuals like those found in the Drosophilia example . DID THOSE DROSPHILIA IN YOUR CITATION SPECIATE? CAN YOU SHOW THAT MAMMALS WOULD UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES? NO and NO. In short, Dave, again you don't KNOW what the he11 you're talking about. It works fine with SOME VARIATION in SOME TRAITS in SOME RAPIDLY BREEDING species, not ALL variation in ALL Traits in ALL species. AND DAVE? VARIATION IS NOT SPECIATION. VARIETIES OF DOGS =/= (does not equal) NEW SPECIES The above data was taken from Wang,Jinliang, et al (1998)  Bottleneck Effect on Genetic Variance: A Theoretical Investigation of the Role of Dominance. Genetics, Vol. 150, 435-447, September 1998 which gives the mathematical basis for such models. Available online at http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/150/1/435 -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,15:52    Let me say this in childlike terms so you can "get" it, Dave: YOU need HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of SPECIATION events that resulted in ALL the species we see from a VERY SMALL number of "kinds" YOU are going to argue that this is possible in 2300 years, but NOT in millions of years ( as eric and others pointed out) You think that SOME variation increase IN SOME polygenic traits in SOME rapidly-breeding SMALL (not a pair) populations can help you produce THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF SPECIES?   YOU are an idiot. YOU are arguing against yourself. You say " speciating evolution CAN happen, but only in small time spans, not large ones"  How freakin' DUMB are you? -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,16:10    Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,07:36) That response to you, plus my reading of Woodmorappe's book, Noah's Ark: A Feasability Study let to an interesting discussion here a few months ago on HLA-B alleles.  I showed (and Mike PSS congratulated me and admitted) that you do not have 16 alleles >> 500.  The numbers are more like 16 >> 61.  So you are incorrect that the "AiG guys ran from your question."  The Woodmorappe book is quite thorough -- cites hundreds of scientific papers to support his conclusions and I presented much of his HLA-B information here.  If you really want to hear AiG's answer, you should buy the book (or download my thread and search it). I see, Dave, that you do not accept that there are over 600 HLA-B alleles, even after I supply you a reference stating exactly that. So why would I even bother sending you references? I told you where your figure of 61 alleles comes from. It has nothing to do with the total number of HLA-B alleles. It's merely an irreducible minimum number of HLA-B alleles that is shared among non-admixed populations of the New and Old Worlds. You didn't dispute that assertion; you merely ignored it. Nor did you give any reason to dispute the total I gave you. In fact, you explicitly stated that you read Woodmorappe and agreed that there were at least 500 HLA-B alleles! I pointed that out to you, and you did not dispute it. Nor has Mike PSS ever admitted, as you claim, that there are only 61 alleles for the HLA-B gene in total. I've pointed this out to you before, and you did not dispute that, either. So what kind of horrifying intellectual dishonesty now permits you to say you still believe there are only 61 HLA-B alleles (which, even if true, would still sink your claim that most variation does not come from mutations, because you'd still need to explain where the majority of HLA-B alleles came from). God, Dave, you are such a fraud. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,16:48    Quote (k.e @ Jan. 02 2007,10:28) SteveS I would like to nominate AFD for the AtBC "Larry Farfaman Biology Award" I'll second k.e's suggestion, Dave is a verifiable dolt. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,16:54    Quote (ericmurphy @ Jan. 02 2007,16:10) You didn't dispute that assertion; you merely ignored it. color me shocked. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,16:55    For shame, Dave.   Quote (afdave @ Nov. 01 2006,09:59) Mike PSS--  I followed your links and got nothing.  I think you are primarily interested in the creationist explanation for the HLA-B locus, with 500 known alleles, right?  Now you were saying you have a table somewhere that shows how similar the alleles of various groups worldwide are, or something, right?  Could you reproduce that table here for us? From reading Woodmorappe, my understanding is that, yes, there are 500 known alleles, but that in any one indigenous people group which has not been mixed with other groups, the number is much lower--maybe 40 or 50 alleles? (my emph.) So you used to think there were 500 alleles for the HLA-B gene. Now you claim that you don't. Based on what? Your complete misreading of Mike PSS's chart? So you think Woodmorappe was mistaken when he admitted there were 500 HLA-B alleles? What else do you think he was wrong about? And what did you think about my Wikipedia link was wrong? You know, the one that counts up 627 HLA-B alleles? What's your basis for thinking that's wrong? Or can you just not keep track of what you believe and what you don't believe? -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,16:56    Are we there yet? -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

Pages: (167) < ... 157 158 159 160 161 [162] 163 164 165 166 167 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard