Evolution and Creationism

[Noose001]

Humans are descended from animals which had tails, like most mammals. In our normal embryonic development a tail starts to develop and is later re-absorbed. Sometimes the re-absorbtion fails, either due to a mutation or some transient environmental influence, and a human with a tail is born.

So evolution stops us from ‘being normal’ early in life and by normal i mean having a tail.
This is very interesting.

 

[rossum]

So evolution stops us from ‘being normal’ early in life and by normal i mean having a tail.
This is very interesting.

You are not reading what I post; you are reading what you think you want me to post. It is normal for humans to have a tail during embryonic development. It is not normal for humans to have a tail at birth. What is normal changes during development in the womb and also during post natal development during life. Teeth are an obvious example. What is normal for teeth changes during life.

 

[Freddy]

But in the end, Fred, you did the right thing – acknowledged the truth in Ripperger’s article, i.e. macroevolution’s claim of a common ancestor for all living creatures is impossible.

If the planet really was created in 7 days as you and Ripperger both believe then yes, macroevolution would be nigh on impossible. He doesn’t need umpteen pages of philosophical chicanery to bedazzle those who might need something more than a literal reading of Genesis on which to hang their hat. All he needs to do is say (as he has) that God worked his wonders to behold to create the whole shooting match in something less than a week. End of story.

And as you have no real understanding of how evolution works (why would you study something that you think is impossible?) and hence cannot possibly give an explanation as to how microevolution somehow grinds to a halt at some arbitrary point, then all you have as well is a seven day creation event to offer as a response.

So be it. We’ll take that as the only explanation possible. It requires no more from you. But I am honestly perplexed by the fact that you (and Buffalo and a couple of others) just don’t honestly state your position and be done with it. You spend so much time trying to hide it and I seriously don’t know why.

 

[Noose001]

It is not normal for humans to have a tail at birth.

Did you say something about accidents?! what part does mutations play for a child to be born normal (without the tail) or does mutations play a part in the appearance of the embryonic tail?

 

[o_mlly]

If the planet really was created in 7 days as you and Ripperger both believe …

Fred, launching another strawman will not help your case.

… umpteen pages of philosophical chicanery to bedazzle those …

Really, Fred, philosophical chicanery? Fred, (I believe I’ve reminded you several times now) This is the Philosophy Forum. I guess your new argument is, “If I don’t understand it then it cannot be true.” I cannot argue with your conditional but to claim your ignorance falsifies Ripperger’s arguments is patently false.

Not much else in your post needs a response. It’s just more from your Atheist’s Playbook , redux.

 

[rossum]

Did you say something about accidents?! what part does mutations play for a child to be born normal (without the tail) or does mutations play a part in the appearance of the embryonic tail?

That would need DNA sequencing. Some atavisms are genetic, and so can be inherited. There is a Mexican family with an atavistic mutation for facial hair. Other atavisms are not genetic but due to some non-inherited influence during development.

 

[Noose001]

That would need DNA sequencing. Some atavisms are genetic, and so can be inherited. There is a Mexican family with an atavistic mutation for facial hair. Other atavisms are not genetic but due to some non-inherited influence during development.

We have already talked about structure and function and based on this, no human has a tail. The abnormality seen in some people can not be considered as a tail because a tail has its function. And you seem to suggest that it is beneficial mutations at the development stage that causes us not to have a full tail at birth.

 

[rossum]

We have already talked about structure and function and based on this, no human has a tail.

Some few humans have the structure of a tail, very obviously. Since science is interested in structures, a human tail is a valid object of scientific investigation.

Function is an external assigned property, not an internal intrinsic property. It is more in the realm of philosophy than of science.

Perhaps the function of a human tail is to make the individual with a tail of interest to geneticists?

 

[Noose001]

Some few humans have the structure of a tail, very obviously. Since science is interested in structures, a human tail is a valid object of scientific investigation.

Function is an external assigned property, not an internal intrinsic property. It is more in the realm of philosophy than of science.

Perhaps the function of a human tail is to make the individual with a tail of interest to geneticists?

Anatomy and Physiology would disagree with you.

But tell me, how does beneficial mutations make a gene dominant and not recessive?

 

[rossum]

But tell me, how does beneficial mutations make a gene dominant and not recessive?

It doesn’t. Beneficial or not depends on the environment. Dominant or recessive depends on the gene, not the environment.

If a recessive gene is beneficial when there are two copies in an individual, then a mutation to change recessive to dominant would also be beneficial, since only one copy would be needed, not two.

 

[Noose001]

It doesn’t. Beneficial or not depends on the environment. Dominant or recessive depends on the gene, not the environment.

If a recessive gene is beneficial when there are two copies in an individual, then a mutation to change recessive to dominant would also be beneficial, since only one copy would be needed, not two.

What you are saying doesn’t make any sense.

1. There’s no evidence that mutations make a gene dominant, it makes them recessive if anything.
2. Even if a gene emerges as dominant, the chances of it overcoming and suppressing the other genes being expressed are nil because of the gene pool within the population. It will be expressed in the 1st and 2nd generations and then disappear because the other gene(s) have numbers on their side.

Example; The sickle cell disease causing gene has been fronted as a beneficial mutation by evolutionists when it comes to malaria prevention . There’s no way sickle cell causing gene will be dominant even in the malaria world (Africa).

Environment doesn’t play any part in gene expression.

 

[rossum]

Example; The sickle cell disease causing gene has been fronted as a beneficial mutation by evolutionists when it comes to malaria prevention . There’s no way sickle cell causing gene will be dominant even in the malaria world (Africa).

Example: The HbC mutation, which is not the HbS, (sickle cell) mutation, also protects against malaria. See Haemoglobin C protects against clinical Plasmodium falciparum malaria.

These findings, together with the limited pathology of HbAC and HbCC compared to the severely disadvantaged HbSS and HbSC genotypes and the low betaS gene frequency in the geographic epicentre of betaC, support the hypothesis that, in the long term and in the absence of malaria control, HbC would replace HbS in central West Africa.

Environment doesn’t play any part in gene expression.

Thalidomide shows that you are wrong. That was part of the environment and shows that you are wrong here. The genes for limb growth were not expressed correctly in the presence of Thalidomide from the environment. I can also reference the genetic effects of Agent Orange as a further example.

 

[Noose001]

Example: The HbC mutation, which is not the HbS, (sickle cell) mutation, also protects against malaria. See Haemoglobin C protects against clinical Plasmodium falciparum malaria.

If HbC homozygous offers almost 100% protection against malaria, why is it very low in malarious region?

The answer is simple, evolution doesn’t work at all.

Loading…

academic.oup.com

Abstract​

Haemoglobin S (HbS; β6Glu→Val) and HbC (β6Glu→Lys) strongly protect against clinical Plasmodium falciparum malaria. HbS, which is lethal in homozygosity, has a multi-foci origin and a widespread geographic distribution in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia whereas HbC, which has no obvious CC segregational load, occurs only in a small area of central West-Africa. To address this apparent paradox, we adopted two partially independent haplotypic approaches in the Mossi population of Burkina Faso where both the local S (SBenin) and the C alleles are common (0.05 and 0.13).

Here we show that: both C and SBenin are monophyletic; C has accumulated a 4-fold higher recombinational and DNA slippage haplotypic variability than the SBenin allele ( P = 0.003) implying higher antiquity; for a long initial lag period, the C alleles did apparently remain very few. These results, consistent with epidemiological evidences, imply that the C allele has been accumulated mainly through a recessive rather than a semidominant mechanism of selection. This evidence explains the apparent paradox of the uni-epicentric geographic distribution of HbC, representing a ‘slow but gratis’ genetic adaptation to malaria through a transient polymorphism, compared to the polycentric ‘quick but costly’ adaptation through balanced polymorphism of HbS.

 

[rossum]

Very interesting, but not relevant to our discussion. I agree that HbS, sickle cell, is unlikely to become fixed in malarial areas. I gave HbC as an example why not, since HbC is more beneficial in those circumstances. Either way, it is an example of evolution in action as the human genome adapts to the presence of malaria in the environment.

You have failed to answer my case about external influences on gene expression, such as the effects of Agent Orange.

 

[Noose001]

Very interesting, but not relevant to our discussion. I agree that HbS, sickle cell, is unlikely to become fixed in malarial areas. I gave HbC as an example why not, since HbC is more beneficial in those circumstances. Either way, it is an example of evolution in action as the human genome adapts to the presence of malaria in the environment.

The article is about HbC in the same area (Burkina Faso). The article is by evolutionists and the results of their study goes against their expectation, that’s why they have called it a paradox. Their appeal to more time (slow but gratis) isn’t working either.

It is simple;

1. The mutation is there, the recessive gene (HbC) is present
2. The environment (Malaria in plenty) is rife for natural selection
3. But only the dominant gene which offers no advantage against malaria is being expressed at higher frequency

Conclusion- Evolution fails and mutations doesn’t make a gene dominant.

You have failed to answer my case about external influences on gene expression, such as the effects of Agent Orange.

Thalidomide is no longer external when injected or finds its way in an organism, of course if injected it will interfere with gene expression.
Just like in the case above, malaria or not, the dominant gene which offers no protection against malaria will be expressed regardless.No external interference.

 

[rossum]

Thalidomide is no longer external when injected or finds its way in an organism, of course if injected it will interfere with gene expression.

Your lack of relevant knowledge is showing here. Externally supplied chemicals are external, whether or not they are ingested. The only internal influences are those that the body itself produces in the course of development. This is a difference between scientific terminology and standard English usage. You need to learn the science if you are going to discuss this subject without confusion.

 

[Noose001]

Your lack of relevant knowledge is showing here. Externally supplied chemicals are external, whether or not they are ingested. The only internal influences are those that the body itself produces in the course of development. This is a difference between scientific terminology and standard English usage. You need to learn the science if you are going to discuss this subject without confusion.

What does natural selection mean?
I’m sure injecting organisms with Thalidomide can not qualify as natural selection. Human interference is artificial selection.

 

[rossum]

What does natural selection mean?

If you do not know the answer to this question then you should not be discussing evolution. If you do know the answer then you are wasting everybody’s time by asking it.

 

[EndTimes]

Are you saying the human body plan was not unique from the start? I thought your teachings were that God specifically designed humans “in his image”.

In His image is analogous - not congruency…

 

[Noose001]

If you do not know the answer to this question then you should not be discussing evolution. If you do know the answer then you are wasting everybody’s time by asking it.

Any other argument?