B
buffalo
Guest
No, it does not.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
A
Aloysium
Guest
The truth is beautiful and cannot be spoken of except poetically. Genesis operates on different levels of meaning; ultimately it is a revelation of the Word of God, foretelling His appearance on earth in the form of Jesus Christ.
Clearly the Gospels and Genesis are different forms of literature. The description of the Word, revealed in the life death and resurrection of Jesus has a day to day feel to it, social events in which we can imagine ouselves participating. Genesis is more like what is beyond quantum physics, the Word bringing about the creation of the universe. One interpretation could be said to be in terms of the science of those days in which it was written. Imagining myself in the Mediterranean, or the Galapagos where the idea came to me, Genesis seems to be describing how a volcanic island appears from the deep and is sequentially populated by plants, fish, birds and animals. In another description, mankind is created first to describe the ontological primacy, the final cause of creation, of a creature who would come to know its Maker.
What is true to my mind is that God created everything from nothing and that He did so, perhaps simultaneously within His eternal Now, but temporally had to put everything together one step at a time. Genesis is historical in that sense. There was one first person, Adam from whom all mankind has sprung, humanity itself, fallen. There is one true Vine, represented at the centre of the Garden which is the relationship between man and God, and was the world in its primordial state. Possessing a free will which allows for the possibility of love and thereby knowing and becoming one with God, our sin, placing ourselves at the centre of our lives rather than Christ, changed everything.
Evolution as it is conceptualized and promoted in today’s society, does not fit in the big picture, but is rather a materialistic vision influenced by a utilitarian approach to life.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Argument from ignorance fallacy.
R
rossum
Guest
Each generation has more natural selection than the last, so more deleterious mutations are removed, for example, all deleterious mutations which render the carrier infertile are removed in one generation. That extra generation of natural selection also works to increase the spread of beneficial mutations.
You cannot correctly understand the effects of evolution if you do not allow for natural selection.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Then show us the evidence in Ötzi’s genome. He lived about 5,000 years ago, so if your idea of increased decay is correct, there should be evidence to show it.
In the absence of evidence then all you have is personal opinion, and that does not count for much in science.
rossum
O
o_mlly
Guest
Yes. And that applies equally to the evolution’s opinion that the origin of species results from mutation and natural selection as no one has experienced speciation.
M
mVitus
Guest
That sounds a bit gnostic. We’re sould and body. If we were merely a soul that possesses as body, there’d be no need for The Resurrection.
And indeed there are important truths that can be understood at any time.
Who created the universe? God.
How many gods? Just one.
Is He limited? No. It says He spoke and it was done, which shows His omnipotence.
So is man special? Yes.
Is God’s creation good? At the end of each day He saw it was good.
Then why is there bad stuff? Original sin.
Why are men and women attracted to each other? They were made for each other.
And when it first came about, Genesis’ contradictions to surrounding Sumerian creations stories would’ve been even more profound.
Please point out where I ever said God was not at the center.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
An argument from ignorance fallacy is one in which a positive claim is asserted because that claim is not contradicted. (e.g. “No one has proved extra-terrestrial beings don’t exist, therefore they exist.”) So if I were to say that spontaneous mutations exist just because Lederberg didn’t prove they don’t exist, that would be an argument from ignorance fallacy. However I am not doing that. My evidence that spontaneous mutations exist come from independent sources, which I have quoted. I only mentioned that Lederberg didn’t disprove them to counter your claim that he did.LeafByNiggle:
Argument from ignorance fallacy.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Try again.
Argument from Ignorance
ad ignorantiam(also known as: appeal to ignorance)
Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Which is exactly what you argued.
R
rossum
Guest
You are grossly misinformed. I have posted evidence of speciation in lacewings, Tauber and Tauber (1977) and in crayfish, Lyko (2017). I have more than personal opinion, I have evidence. In science evidence beats no evidence.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Science has figured around 10% of deleterious mutations are passed on.
B
buffalo
Guest
January 2018: More Real World Evidence of Genetic Degeneration
The newest edition of Genetic Entropy (2014), has shown that genetic degeneration is not just a theoretical concern, but is observed in numerous real-life situations. Genetic Entropy has reviewed research that shows: a) the ubiquitous genetic degeneration of the somatic cells of all human beings; and b) the genetic germline degeneration of the whole human population. Likewise Genetic Entropy has reviewed research that shows rapid genetic degeneration in the H1N1 influenza virus. Genetic Entropy also documents “evolution in reverse” in the famous LLEE bacterial experiment (article available here).
A new paper (Lynch, 2016) written by a leading population geneticist, shows that human genetic degeneration is a very serious problem. He affirms that the human germline mutation rate is roughly 100 new mutations per person per generation, while the somatic mutation rate is roughly 3 new mutations per cell division. Lynch estimates human fitness is declining 1-5% per generation, and he adds; “most mutations have minor effects, very few have lethal consequences, and even fewer are beneficial.”
Our new book “Contested Bones” (available at ContestedBones.org) cites evidence showing that the early human population referred to as Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis) was highly inbred, and had a very high genetic load (40% less fit than modern humans) (Harris and Nielsen, 2016; Roebroeks and Soressi, 2016). See pages pages 315-316. This severe genetic degeneration probably contributed to the disappearance of that population (PrÜfer et al., 2014; Sankararaman et al., 2014).
Similarly, the new book Contested Bones (pages 86-89), cites evidence that the early human population referred to as “Hobbit” (Homo floresiensis), was also inbred and apparently suffered from a special type of genetic degeneration called “reductive evolution” (insular dwarfing) (Berger et al., 2008; Morwood et al., 2004). This results in reduced body size, reduced brain volume, and various pathologies (Henneberg et al., 2014).
Contested Bones (pages 179-210) also cites evidence that the early human population referred to as Naledi (Homo naledi), was likewise inbred and suffered from “reductive evolution”, again resulting in reduced body size, reduced brain volume, and various pathologies.
Contested Bones (pages 53-75) also cites evidence that many other early human populations, broadly referred to as Erectus (Homo erectus), were inbred and suffered from “reductive evolution” (Anton, 2003). However, it seems the genetic degeneration of Erectus was less advanced—generally resulting in more moderate reductions in body size, brain size, and pathologies. Indeed, many paleoanthropologists would fold both Hobbit and Naledi into the more diverse Erectus category.
The newest edition of Genetic Entropy (2014), has shown that genetic degeneration is not just a theoretical concern, but is observed in numerous real-life situations. Genetic Entropy has reviewed research that shows: a) the ubiquitous genetic degeneration of the somatic cells of all human beings; and b) the genetic germline degeneration of the whole human population. Likewise Genetic Entropy has reviewed research that shows rapid genetic degeneration in the H1N1 influenza virus. Genetic Entropy also documents “evolution in reverse” in the famous LLEE bacterial experiment (article available here).
A new paper (Lynch, 2016) written by a leading population geneticist, shows that human genetic degeneration is a very serious problem. He affirms that the human germline mutation rate is roughly 100 new mutations per person per generation, while the somatic mutation rate is roughly 3 new mutations per cell division. Lynch estimates human fitness is declining 1-5% per generation, and he adds; “most mutations have minor effects, very few have lethal consequences, and even fewer are beneficial.”
Our new book “Contested Bones” (available at ContestedBones.org) cites evidence showing that the early human population referred to as Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis) was highly inbred, and had a very high genetic load (40% less fit than modern humans) (Harris and Nielsen, 2016; Roebroeks and Soressi, 2016). See pages pages 315-316. This severe genetic degeneration probably contributed to the disappearance of that population (PrÜfer et al., 2014; Sankararaman et al., 2014).
Similarly, the new book Contested Bones (pages 86-89), cites evidence that the early human population referred to as “Hobbit” (Homo floresiensis), was also inbred and apparently suffered from a special type of genetic degeneration called “reductive evolution” (insular dwarfing) (Berger et al., 2008; Morwood et al., 2004). This results in reduced body size, reduced brain volume, and various pathologies (Henneberg et al., 2014).
Contested Bones (pages 179-210) also cites evidence that the early human population referred to as Naledi (Homo naledi), was likewise inbred and suffered from “reductive evolution”, again resulting in reduced body size, reduced brain volume, and various pathologies.
Contested Bones (pages 53-75) also cites evidence that many other early human populations, broadly referred to as Erectus (Homo erectus), were inbred and suffered from “reductive evolution” (Anton, 2003). However, it seems the genetic degeneration of Erectus was less advanced—generally resulting in more moderate reductions in body size, brain size, and pathologies. Indeed, many paleoanthropologists would fold both Hobbit and Naledi into the more diverse Erectus category.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
An important but overlooked paper, written by leading population geneticists (Keightley et al., 2005), reported that the two hypothetical populations that gave rise to modern man and modern chimpanzee both must have experienced continuous genetic degeneration during the last 6 million years. The problems associated with this claim should be obvious. Their title is: Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes, and they state that there has been the “accumulation of a large number of deleterious mutations in sequences containing gene control elements and hence a widespread degradation of the genome during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.” (emphasis added).
A new paper (Gaur, 2017), shows that if a substantial fraction of the human genome is functional (is not junk DNA), then the evolution of man would not be possible (due to genetic degeneration). Gaur states that human evolution would be very problematic even if the genome was 10% functional, but would be completely impossible if 25% or more was functional. Yet the ENCODE project shows that at least 60% of the genome is functional.
A new paper (Rogers and Slatkin, 2017), shows that mammoth populations were highly inbred and carried an elevated genetic load (likely contributing to their extinction due to “mutational meltdown”).
A paper (Kumar and Subramanian, 2002) shows that mutation rates are similar for all mammals, when based on mutation rate per year (not per generation). This means that mammals (both mice and men) should degenerate similarly in the same amount of time. This suggests that the major mutation mechanisms are not tightly correlated to cell divisions.
A new paper (Ramu et al., 2017), shows that the tropical crop, cassava, has been accumulating many deleterious mutations, resulting a seriously increasing genetic load, and a distinct decline in fitness.
Another paper (Mattila et al. 2012), shows high genetic load in an old isolated butterfly population. “This population exemplifies the increasingly common situation in fragmented landscapes, in which small and completely isolated populations are vulnerable to extinction due to high genetic load.”
Another paper (Holmes, E. C. 2003), shows that all RNA viruses must be young—less than 50,000 years. This is consistent with our H1N1 influenza study that show that RNA virus strains degenerate very rapidly.
A new paper (Gaur, 2017), shows that if a substantial fraction of the human genome is functional (is not junk DNA), then the evolution of man would not be possible (due to genetic degeneration). Gaur states that human evolution would be very problematic even if the genome was 10% functional, but would be completely impossible if 25% or more was functional. Yet the ENCODE project shows that at least 60% of the genome is functional.
A new paper (Rogers and Slatkin, 2017), shows that mammoth populations were highly inbred and carried an elevated genetic load (likely contributing to their extinction due to “mutational meltdown”).
A paper (Kumar and Subramanian, 2002) shows that mutation rates are similar for all mammals, when based on mutation rate per year (not per generation). This means that mammals (both mice and men) should degenerate similarly in the same amount of time. This suggests that the major mutation mechanisms are not tightly correlated to cell divisions.
A new paper (Ramu et al., 2017), shows that the tropical crop, cassava, has been accumulating many deleterious mutations, resulting a seriously increasing genetic load, and a distinct decline in fitness.
Another paper (Mattila et al. 2012), shows high genetic load in an old isolated butterfly population. “This population exemplifies the increasingly common situation in fragmented landscapes, in which small and completely isolated populations are vulnerable to extinction due to high genetic load.”
Another paper (Holmes, E. C. 2003), shows that all RNA viruses must be young—less than 50,000 years. This is consistent with our H1N1 influenza study that show that RNA virus strains degenerate very rapidly.
B
buffalo
Guest
References:
Anton S.C., Natural History of Homo erectus, Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 46:126-169, 2003.
Berger L.R. et al., Small-bodied humans from Palau, Micronesia, PLOS ONE 3(3):e1780, 2008.
Gaur, D. 2017. An Upper Limit on the Functional Fraction of the Human Genome. Genome Biol. Evol. 9(7):1880–1885. doi:10.1093/gbe/evx121 Advance Access publication July 11, 2017
Harris K. and Nielsen R., The genetic cost of Neanderthal Introgression, Genetics 203: 881-891, 2016.
Henneberg M. et al., Evolved developmental homeostasis disturbed in LB1 from Flores, Indonesia denotes Down syndrome and not diagnostic traits of the invalid species Homo oresiensis, Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 111(33):11967-11972, 2014.
Holmes, E. C. 2003 Molecular Clocks and the Puzzle of RNA Virus Origins. Journal of Virology Apr. 2003, p. 3893–3897
Keightley PD, Lercher MJ, Eyre-Walker A. (2005). Evidence for widespread degradation of gene control regions in hominid genomes. PLoS Biol 3(2): e42.
Kumar S. and Subramanian, S. 2002. Mutation Rates in Mammalian genomes. PNAS 99 (2), 803-808.
Lynch, M. 2016. Mutation and Human Exceptionalism: Our Future Genetic Load. Genetics, Vol. 202, 869–875 http://www.genetics.org/content/202/3/869
Morwood M.J. et al., Archaeology and age of a new hominin from Flores in eastern Indonesia, Nature 431:s3, 2004.
Mattila A., et al. 2012. High genetic load in an old isolated butterfly population. PNAS | Published online August 20, 2012. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1205789109
PrÜfer K. et al., A complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains, Nature 505(7481):43-49, 2014.
Ramu, P., et al. 2017. Cassava haplotype map highlights fixation of deleterious mutations during clonal propagation. Nature Genetics 49 (6) 959-965.
Roebroeks W. and Soressi M., Neandertals Revised, Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 113(23):6372-6379, 2016.
Rogers R. and Slatkin, M. 2017. Excess of genomic defects in a woolly mammoth on Wrangel island. PLOS Genetics | doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006601 March 2, 2017
Rupe, C. and Sanford, J. 2017. Contested Bones. FMS Publications, Waterloo, NY
Sankararaman S. et al., e genomic landscape of Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humans, Nature 507(7492):354-357, 2014.
http://www.geneticentropy.org/latest-development
Anton S.C., Natural History of Homo erectus, Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 46:126-169, 2003.
Berger L.R. et al., Small-bodied humans from Palau, Micronesia, PLOS ONE 3(3):e1780, 2008.
Gaur, D. 2017. An Upper Limit on the Functional Fraction of the Human Genome. Genome Biol. Evol. 9(7):1880–1885. doi:10.1093/gbe/evx121 Advance Access publication July 11, 2017
Harris K. and Nielsen R., The genetic cost of Neanderthal Introgression, Genetics 203: 881-891, 2016.
Henneberg M. et al., Evolved developmental homeostasis disturbed in LB1 from Flores, Indonesia denotes Down syndrome and not diagnostic traits of the invalid species Homo oresiensis, Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 111(33):11967-11972, 2014.
Holmes, E. C. 2003 Molecular Clocks and the Puzzle of RNA Virus Origins. Journal of Virology Apr. 2003, p. 3893–3897
Keightley PD, Lercher MJ, Eyre-Walker A. (2005). Evidence for widespread degradation of gene control regions in hominid genomes. PLoS Biol 3(2): e42.
Kumar S. and Subramanian, S. 2002. Mutation Rates in Mammalian genomes. PNAS 99 (2), 803-808.
Lynch, M. 2016. Mutation and Human Exceptionalism: Our Future Genetic Load. Genetics, Vol. 202, 869–875 http://www.genetics.org/content/202/3/869
Morwood M.J. et al., Archaeology and age of a new hominin from Flores in eastern Indonesia, Nature 431:s3, 2004.
Mattila A., et al. 2012. High genetic load in an old isolated butterfly population. PNAS | Published online August 20, 2012. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1205789109
PrÜfer K. et al., A complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains, Nature 505(7481):43-49, 2014.
Ramu, P., et al. 2017. Cassava haplotype map highlights fixation of deleterious mutations during clonal propagation. Nature Genetics 49 (6) 959-965.
Roebroeks W. and Soressi M., Neandertals Revised, Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 113(23):6372-6379, 2016.
Rogers R. and Slatkin, M. 2017. Excess of genomic defects in a woolly mammoth on Wrangel island. PLOS Genetics | doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006601 March 2, 2017
Rupe, C. and Sanford, J. 2017. Contested Bones. FMS Publications, Waterloo, NY
Sankararaman S. et al., e genomic landscape of Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humans, Nature 507(7492):354-357, 2014.
http://www.geneticentropy.org/latest-development
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
You are grossly ignoring the refutations posted that defeat the claims that lacewings and crayfish evidence speciation.
T
TheOldColonel
Guest
I think the seven day explanation actually supports the idea of evolution, showing that the cosmos and all life in it develop over a period of time. But to the literalist, seven days is exactly seven days, leaving no room at all for interpretation or understanding of literary devices such as metaphor. That God integrated ongoing design changes into His grand design does not contradict His Word but speaks of His majesty as the master creator.
"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:9
"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:9
R
rossum
Guest
Science has figured around 90% of deleterious mutations are not passed on, and the 10% that are, are mostly mildly deleterious. Science has also figured that most beneficial mutations are passed on and spread.
I note you have so far failed to produce any evidence for genome decay from the Ice Man’s genome.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Both papers are examples of speciation, i.e. macroevolution, as defined by science.
If you are using a different definition of macroevolution, then what you are doing is not science I’m afraid.
rossum
O
o_mlly
Guest
More than once you have failed to define speciation. Without a precise definition of terms there is no science.
R
rossum
Guest
In both cases, the definition is the ability to interbreed. The lacewings have different breeding seasons, so cannot interbreed. The new crayfish species is parthenogenic and so cannot interbreed with its ancestral species.
Both are good examples of macroevolution.
rossum
- Status