Creationists

[daws101]

Really Hollie ? I just presented you with the facts evolution over millions of years through mutations is the fairytale.

Really, dear, it's difficult to know what you presented as you provided no source. Which is just as well because having to slog through creationist websites to find that source is tedious and frustrating.

Why are you arbitrarily going to account for all of existence being at the sweeping hand of gawds which you claim are eternal, uncreated, etc., etc.? Why are you arbitrarily excusing your gawds from being created? Why not “super gawds” who are the creators of your sectarian gawds?

Of course it helps if we first decide what it is we mean (or meant) by "gawd" as it applies to ones beliefs in a supernatural being, the "creator of all", the "Big Cheese", and being consigned to heaven or hell. I must confess to an assumption here; that is, when I enter into theistic debates I assume for the sake of efficiency that your "gawds" are defined in the Judeo-Christian vein, i.e., an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural being who exists both eternally in the past and into the future, etc., etc., etc. I should stop assuming that of course, but the vast majority of debates stem from that definition, so allow me the mea culpa

Your primary contention with the science of evolution appears to be for you, an irresolvable dilemma with timelines: the indisputable fact of an ancient earth vs. the biblical take of a young earth. A simple solution to this entire “gawds” issue would be for the gawds to make their presence known in a clearly defined way. Maybe a first start would be for the creation tale to not delineate things in terms of "days" at all then. Why would the divine being purposely use a term that humans would use within their own context, thus purposely obscuring the true nature of reality?

I don't buy typical apologists' claims that only through their particular interpretation can "the will of the gawds" be understood. We're talking about a book that was written not too distantly from the building of the pyramids-- clearly in certain areas humans were quite advanced. And even within the book itself concepts of "eternity" are brought to light, so why don't the gods just state the "facts" as they are? "In the first 1 billion years...."

For eternal gawds who are, on the one hand excused for being obscure regarding "time" related issues to suddenly have some problem with the idea that within about 4000 years of the writing of your "holy text", (given the biblical timeline) humans would advance enough to be able to make credible interpretations of the clues of creation is self-defeating the original proposition that gawds would "speak" in obscure ways about time.

I provided you the scientists that provided the numbers and the Genome project say's it could be higher then U=3.1 mutation rate because there are areas of the Genome that has not been unlocked to scientists.

could? that's maybe or might?
what are the odds it's more and what % is beneficial ?

 

[Koios]

Patently false. Most are neutral. The beneficial ones lead to reproduction (get copied) The harmful ones do not get reproduced (go away)

Now you know.

This is true. Actually bad mutations are largely fatal and do not produce viable offspring. The majority of mutations are neutral and affects junk DNA which has little to know effect on the outcome. To add to this summary though, we have built-in genes that edit DNA and correct mutations.

Plus protenome, epi-genetic variations ... more to learn all the time, about evolution, a goddamn fact of all life, here or on other planets, which no so long ago (few 1000 years) wer though to be ... GODS!!!

Hahahahahahahaha

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I wonder if we ever find intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, if religious nuts will claim jesus died for their alien sins as well. hahaha

 

[newpolitics]

not to worry np, what he's not making up is cut and paste pseudoscience.

I told you before if it got technical you would not understand.

wrong as always.
it was not as technical as you wish it was.
besides you have no evidence as np so elegantly stated.
as always it's no proof that god did it.

Thank you

YWC, If you are claiming that all genomes contain a self-destruct sequence, to use an analogy, you should have some understanding of the biological mechanism that would cause this, yet you are mysteriously absent this, despite being a former biologist with an intimate understanding of this facet of existence. Instead, you look at the incidence of genetic disorders, and somehow conclude that it must therefore be due to the genome progressively falling apart over time, without any direct evidence. I assert that there is no justification for this belief, and is merely leading the evidence to your presuppositions in whatever way possible. Being that your model of reality is, in my opinion, utterly wrong, I would a expect to find a number of holes in your reasoning, which indeed, we do, as I have just pointed out one of them.

 

[daws101]

Patently false. Most are neutral. The beneficial ones lead to reproduction (get copied) The harmful ones do not get reproduced (go away)

Now you know.

This is true. Actually bad mutations are largely fatal and do not produce viable offspring. The majority of mutations are neutral and affects junk DNA which has little to know effect on the outcome. To add to this summary though, we have built-in genes that edit DNA and correct mutations.

Plus protenome, epi-genetic variations ... more to learn all the time, about evolution, a goddamn fact of all life, here or on other planets, which no so long ago (few 1000 years) wer though to be ... GODS!!!

Hahahahahahahaha

blasphemer ! it's the pillory for you ! we'll whip god into you !

 

[Koios]

This is true. Actually bad mutations are largely fatal and do not produce viable offspring. The majority of mutations are neutral and affects junk DNA which has little to know effect on the outcome. To add to this summary though, we have built-in genes that edit DNA and correct mutations.

Plus protenome, epi-genetic variations ... more to learn all the time, about evolution, a goddamn fact of all life, here or on other planets, which no so long ago (few 1000 years) wer though to be ... GODS!!!

Hahahahahahahaha

blasphemer ! it's the pillory for you ! we'll whip god into you !

But only blaspheming the old defunct gods and not the shiny new God Almighty / Allah / Etc., praise babyjesus amen.

LOL

 

[Koios]

I wonder if we ever find intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, if religious nuts will claim jesus died for their alien sins as well. hahaha

Or elsewhere on this site, for that matter.

 

[Hollie]

Really Hollie ? I just presented you with the facts evolution over millions of years through mutations is the fairytale.

Really, dear, it's difficult to know what you presented as you provided no source. Which is just as well because having to slog through creationist websites to find that source is tedious and frustrating.

Why are you arbitrarily going to account for all of existence being at the sweeping hand of gawds which you claim are eternal, uncreated, etc., etc.? Why are you arbitrarily excusing your gawds from being created? Why not “super gawds” who are the creators of your sectarian gawds?

Of course it helps if we first decide what it is we mean (or meant) by "gawd" as it applies to ones beliefs in a supernatural being, the "creator of all", the "Big Cheese", and being consigned to heaven or hell. I must confess to an assumption here; that is, when I enter into theistic debates I assume for the sake of efficiency that your "gawds" are defined in the Judeo-Christian vein, i.e., an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural being who exists both eternally in the past and into the future, etc., etc., etc. I should stop assuming that of course, but the vast majority of debates stem from that definition, so allow me the mea culpa

Your primary contention with the science of evolution appears to be for you, an irresolvable dilemma with timelines: the indisputable fact of an ancient earth vs. the biblical take of a young earth. A simple solution to this entire “gawds” issue would be for the gawds to make their presence known in a clearly defined way. Maybe a first start would be for the creation tale to not delineate things in terms of "days" at all then. Why would the divine being purposely use a term that humans would use within their own context, thus purposely obscuring the true nature of reality?

I don't buy typical apologists' claims that only through their particular interpretation can "the will of the gawds" be understood. We're talking about a book that was written not too distantly from the building of the pyramids-- clearly in certain areas humans were quite advanced. And even within the book itself concepts of "eternity" are brought to light, so why don't the gods just state the "facts" as they are? "In the first 1 billion years...."

For eternal gawds who are, on the one hand excused for being obscure regarding "time" related issues to suddenly have some problem with the idea that within about 4000 years of the writing of your "holy text", (given the biblical timeline) humans would advance enough to be able to make credible interpretations of the clues of creation is self-defeating the original proposition that gawds would "speak" in obscure ways about time.

I provided you the scientists that provided the numbers and the Genome project say's it could be higher then U=3.1 mutation rate because there are areas of the Genome that has not been unlocked to scientists.

As with everything you post, I find a need to investigate your claims / sources.

I was suspicious as to why you refused to return a link to what you claim was data from "Eyre, Walker and Keightley". At least two articles I found by the referenced authors did not suggest the results you posted.

Did you realize that your source, the link you refuse to supply, have managed to mis-spell the names of the authors?

The authors are Adam Eyre-Walker and Peter D. Keightley.

NOT Eyre, Walker and Keightley per your post.

Let me guess, your "information" is from a creationist website that has altered or manipulated the data, right?

 

[Youwerecreated]

not to worry np, what he's not making up is cut and paste pseudoscience.

I told you before if it got technical you would not understand.

wrong as always.
it was not as technical as you wish it was.
besides you have no evidence as np so elegantly stated.
as always it's no proof that god did it.

The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (Muller 1950; Wallace 1981; Crow 1993; Kondrashov 1995; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 − e−U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection (Wallace 1991) or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (Kondrashov 1995; Crow 1997; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.

Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans

 

[Youwerecreated]

Really, dear, it's difficult to know what you presented as you provided no source. Which is just as well because having to slog through creationist websites to find that source is tedious and frustrating.

Why are you arbitrarily going to account for all of existence being at the sweeping hand of gawds which you claim are eternal, uncreated, etc., etc.? Why are you arbitrarily excusing your gawds from being created? Why not “super gawds” who are the creators of your sectarian gawds?

Of course it helps if we first decide what it is we mean (or meant) by "gawd" as it applies to ones beliefs in a supernatural being, the "creator of all", the "Big Cheese", and being consigned to heaven or hell. I must confess to an assumption here; that is, when I enter into theistic debates I assume for the sake of efficiency that your "gawds" are defined in the Judeo-Christian vein, i.e., an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural being who exists both eternally in the past and into the future, etc., etc., etc. I should stop assuming that of course, but the vast majority of debates stem from that definition, so allow me the mea culpa

Your primary contention with the science of evolution appears to be for you, an irresolvable dilemma with timelines: the indisputable fact of an ancient earth vs. the biblical take of a young earth. A simple solution to this entire “gawds” issue would be for the gawds to make their presence known in a clearly defined way. Maybe a first start would be for the creation tale to not delineate things in terms of "days" at all then. Why would the divine being purposely use a term that humans would use within their own context, thus purposely obscuring the true nature of reality?

I don't buy typical apologists' claims that only through their particular interpretation can "the will of the gawds" be understood. We're talking about a book that was written not too distantly from the building of the pyramids-- clearly in certain areas humans were quite advanced. And even within the book itself concepts of "eternity" are brought to light, so why don't the gods just state the "facts" as they are? "In the first 1 billion years...."

For eternal gawds who are, on the one hand excused for being obscure regarding "time" related issues to suddenly have some problem with the idea that within about 4000 years of the writing of your "holy text", (given the biblical timeline) humans would advance enough to be able to make credible interpretations of the clues of creation is self-defeating the original proposition that gawds would "speak" in obscure ways about time.

I provided you the scientists that provided the numbers and the Genome project say's it could be higher then U=3.1 mutation rate because there are areas of the Genome that has not been unlocked to scientists.

As with everything you post, I find a need to investigate your claims / sources.

I was suspicious as to why you refused to return a link to what you claim was data from "Eyre, Walker and Keightley". At least two articles I found by the referenced authors did not suggest the results you posted.

Did you realize that your source, the link you refuse to supply, have managed to mis-spell the names of the authors?

The authors are Adam Eyre-Walker and Peter D. Keightley.

NOT Eyre, Walker and Keightley per your post.

Let me guess, your "information" is from a creationist website that has altered or manipulated the data, right?

Lookie hollie is wrong again.

The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (Muller 1950; Wallace 1981; Crow 1993; Kondrashov 1995; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 − e−U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection (Wallace 1991) or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (Kondrashov 1995; Crow 1997; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.

When will you learn dummy ?


Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans

 

[Hollie]

I told you before if it got technical you would not understand.

wrong as always.
it was not as technical as you wish it was.
besides you have no evidence as np so elegantly stated.
as always it's no proof that god did it.

The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (Muller 1950; Wallace 1981; Crow 1993; Kondrashov 1995; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 − e−U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection (Wallace 1991) or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (Kondrashov 1995; Crow 1997; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.

Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans

From the same article:

"MUTATION is the ultimate source of genetic variation; it is both the substrate for evolution and the cause of genetic disease".

 

[Hollie]

I provided you the scientists that provided the numbers and the Genome project say's it could be higher then U=3.1 mutation rate because there are areas of the Genome that has not been unlocked to scientists.

As with everything you post, I find a need to investigate your claims / sources.

I was suspicious as to why you refused to return a link to what you claim was data from "Eyre, Walker and Keightley". At least two articles I found by the referenced authors did not suggest the results you posted.

Did you realize that your source, the link you refuse to supply, have managed to mis-spell the names of the authors?

The authors are Adam Eyre-Walker and Peter D. Keightley.

NOT Eyre, Walker and Keightley per your post.

Let me guess, your "information" is from a creationist website that has altered or manipulated the data, right?

Lookie hollie is wrong again.

The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (Muller 1950; Wallace 1981; Crow 1993; Kondrashov 1995; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 − e−U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection (Wallace 1991) or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (Kondrashov 1995; Crow 1997; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.

When will you learn dummy ?


Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans

Wrong about what? I noted that you were unable to correctly recite the names of the authors you were referencing.

I've learned from experience that your creationist sources have a habit of editing, parsing and manipulating data. That is why I wanted you to supply a link.

 

[Youwerecreated]

wrong as always.
it was not as technical as you wish it was.
besides you have no evidence as np so elegantly stated.
as always it's no proof that god did it.

The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (Muller 1950; Wallace 1981; Crow 1993; Kondrashov 1995; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 − e−U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection (Wallace 1991) or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (Kondrashov 1995; Crow 1997; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.

Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans

From the same article:

"MUTATION is the ultimate source of genetic variation; it is both the substrate for evolution and the cause of genetic disease".

What do you expect from an evolutionist based site ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie hollie hollie, you're still in denial.

 

[Hollie]

The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction (Muller 1950; Wallace 1981; Crow 1993; Kondrashov 1995; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 − e−U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. The problem can be mitigated somewhat by soft selection (Wallace 1991) or by selection early in development (e.g., in utero). However, many mutations are unconditionally deleterious and it is improbable that the reproductive potential on average for human females can approach 40 zygotes. This problem can be overcome if most deleterious mutations exhibit synergistic epistasis; that is, if each additional mutation leads to a larger decrease in relative fitness (Kondrashov 1995; Crow 1997; Eyre-Walker and Keightley 1999). In the extreme, this gives rise to truncation selection in which all individuals carrying more than a threshold number of mutations are eliminated from the population. While extreme truncation selection seems unrealistic, the results presented here indicate that some form of positive epistasis among deleterious mutations is likely.

Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans

From the same article:

"MUTATION is the ultimate source of genetic variation; it is both the substrate for evolution and the cause of genetic disease".

What do you expect from an evolutionist based site ?

Do you ever think before you hit the "submit reply" button?

Why would you link to an "evolutionist based site" in a failed attempt to prove your gawds?

 

[Hollie]

Hollie hollie hollie, you're still in denial.

You're befuddled, as usual.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

YWC, you do realize that genetic mutations can get corrected, don't you?

 

[daws101]

Hollie hollie hollie, you're still in denial.

how's that? hollies' never denied your full of shit.
face it wyc you're de queen of denial.

 

[daws101]

YWC, you do realize that genetic mutations can get corrected, don't you?

no it would fuck up his entropy is god's punishment for sin fantasy.

 

[newpolitics]

It is a fact jack .We are accumulating more harmful mutations then we can get rid of. It's like this. A person thinks they can be rich if they contiue to spend more then they bring in,kinda like Obama. Unless you would like to present a number on beneficial mutation rate and compare it to the harmful mutation rate.

I didn't think so.

Because you don't believe in evolution, you fail to realize that evolution has effectively stopped in human populations, especially in industrialized nations. This is because there are no consistent selective pressures, since we have successfully conquered our environment. Except for the most debilitating diseases, most people born in industrialized societies will make it to maturity and potentially mate. This is completely unnatural relative to how our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived. This means that harmful mutations are not selected against and are allowed to propagate themselves within the population. However, because of sexual selection, the fittest and most attractive are still procreating amongst eachother.

This all means that harmful mutations being evermore present in our population is simply due to he fact that there is no longer a selective pressure to kill them off. It is not because the genome is falling apart. Your proposed cause for the observed effect is wrong.