Evidence for God from Science

Confirmation bias is just hard at work over there.

That's what I call, the pot calling the kettle black.

KBCid wrote:A change / mutation is an alteration in genetic information. Meiosis is a change / alteration in genetic information performed intentionally by the coding already present within the organism. Tell me how does one discern a controlled change from a random copying error? Reference the experiment that was used to define a random error from an intentional change.

Ivellious wrote:We have established that translation errors (random mutations) and recombination of chromosomes during meiosis can both cause genetic variations and changes. You say that I can't tell them apart...but yes, I can. Translation and Meiosis are separate functions in cell division/replication.

Actually 'we' have not established that translation errors cause genetic errors to the DNA. As you are properly noting at this point translation is a separate function. Translation occurs after transcription. The subject we were supposed to be in reference to here is strictly heritable genetic errors where it is asserted that random mutations change alleles configuration in offspring DNA. Although translation error can affect protein formation it is not typically a genetic error in the DNA itself.
Some people consider that the synthesis (S) phase in Meiosis is a 'translation' from the DNA's starting form since it is the stage where duplication occurs. However, this is more properly defined as either replication or duplication.

Ivellious wrote:Scientists can and have watched these steps in cell division/reproduction for many years. if a variation comes out of the meiosis step, then clearly that change is caused by recombination during meiosis. If that mutation comes as a byproduct of translation, then it is a translation error. Is that so hard to understand?

As noted just above our discussion is not properly about translation. It is about heritable mutation to alleles that eventually exist in offspring.

Ivellious wrote:If you wanted to tell whether a variation/mutation was caused by one of these functions (or another process altogether) you can look at the type of change to the genetic structure. Mutations come in many forms: insertion, deletion, point mutation and so on and so forth. There are many types of mutations that can occur randomly, some on a small scale and some much more impactful (i.e. duplicating entire chunks of chromosomes instead of just a string of a few nucleotides).

There is also Inversion and expression mutations.
Since we should be focused on what is considered random mutations to inherited alleles my particular point here is that each of the mutation types; insertion, deletion, point mutation,Inversion and expression are typically considered the random mutations that evolutionists assert to be occuring and driving unique variations. These are the types of changes that I question as being random. What evidence or experiment has shown that these changes to the DNA are indeed random?

Ivellious wrote:On the other hand, Meiosis operates entirely separately, and predictably to some degree. First of all, every time you have meiosis you have recombination. in that sense, it isn't random in the slightest.

Indeed the entire event is tightly controlled

Ivellious wrote:Also, recombination will never have the same effect as a mutation. It doesn't add new nucleotides, it doesn't delete DNA strands, it doesn't change existing DNA bases...It simply swaps pieces of chromosomes with each other to form a distinct chromosome that is different from each parent. For the record, in an evolutionary sense, meiosis will never produce a new species in the absence of mutations. Recombination does not change the gene pool at all. Are you still confused by this?

Functions of homologous DNA recombination
While meiotic crossing over is supposed to create genetic diversity by producing new combinations of the alleles derived from parents and the genetic diversity may help cells to adapt to such unfavorable conditions, the significance of meiotic gene conversion has not been well understood.
Gene conversion between nonallelic genes can also potentially generate a gene with novel functions by shuffling parts of the parental open reading frame (ORF) with aligned coding frames. This type of gene conversion is the mechanism used to create immunoglobulin diversity in chickens and some mammals. In these organisms, a unique copy of a rearranged immunoglobulin v gene undergoes repeated cycles of gene conversion with one of several variable pseudogenes, promoting antibody diversity.
A possible role of meiotic gene conversion in evolution has been discussed recently with respect to the creation of novel genes.
http://www.riken.go.jp/lab-www/library/ ... 41_021.pdf

Genetic Analysis of Variation in Human Meiotic Recombination
Our results suggest that gender differences in recombination result from differences in the genetic regulation of female and male meiosis. Also, each identified locus only explains a small proportion of variance; together, each set of loci explains about 10% of the variation in the gender-specific recombination phenotype. This suggests a mechanism for variability in recombination that is essential for genetic diversity while maintaining the number of recombinations within a range to ensure proper chromosome segregation.
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/inf ... en.1000648

Gene conversion
Gene conversion is an event in DNA genetic recombination, which occurs at high frequencies during meiotic division but which also occurs in somatic cells. It is a process by which DNA sequence information is transferred from one DNA helix (which remains unchanged) to another DNA helix, whose sequence is altered. It is one of the ways a gene may be mutated.
...So, in fact, the pseudogenes can act as a source of sequence variants which can be transferred to the functional gene in novel combinations that are not tried so far and can be acted up on by selection...
... Of course the frequency of the contribution of this pseudogene-mediated gene conversion mechanism to functional and adaptive changes in evolution of human is still unknown and so far it has been scarcely explored (Chen et al., 2007).
In spite of that, the introduction of positively selective genetic changes by such mechanism can be put forward for consideration by the example of SIGLEC11. Sometimes due to interference of transposable elements in to some members of a gene family, it causes a variation among them and finally it may also cease the rate of gene conversion due to lack of sequence similarity which leads to divergent evolution.

KBCid wrote:Reference the experiment that was used to define a random error from an intentional change.

Ivellious wrote:This is a loaded question. I've shown you how to differentiate between two vastly different processes in cells. Your question presumes that organisms somehow have the ability to intentionally change themselves at a genetic level, which is ludicrous. Genetic changes are not "intentional" unless you are referring to meiosis and recombination of a child's DNA at conception.

You have shown me how 'you' differentiate between two vastly different processes in cells. My question presumes nothing;

Mendel's Law May Be Flawed
In the Purdue experiment, researchers found that a watercress plant sometimes corrects the genetic code it inherited from its flawed parents and grows normally like its grandparents and other ancestors.
Scientists said the discovery raises questions of whether humans also have the potential for avoiding genetic flaws or even repairing them, although they said the actual proteins responsible for making these fixes probably would be different in plants.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... 5/03/66995

The observable evidence is not ludicrous unless you have an a priori commitment that prevents you from understanding it.

KBCid wrote:Or more correctly the variation contunually occurs in the population. This eliminates the random mutation concept.

Ivellious wrote:No, it does not. In a type of population such as a bacteria, mutations are frequent and more readily seen because their populations reproduce so quickly. Also, bacteria do not even undergo meiosis, and thus the type of genetic variation you referenced earlier doesn't even apply here.

OMG "bacteria do not even undergo meiosis"... You are so right. The two processes don't have a thing in common...

Transformation, like meiosis, is a complex process requiring the function of numerous gene products. The ability to undergo natural transformation among bacterial species is widespread. At least 67 prokaryote species (in seven different phyla) are known to be competent for transformation.[11] A key similarity between bacterial sex and eukaryotic sex is that DNA originating from two different individuals (parents) join up so that homologous sequences are aligned with each other, and this is followed by exchange of genetic information (a process called genetic recombination). After the new recombinant chromosome is formed it is passed on to progeny.
When genetic recombination occurs between DNA molecules originating from different parents, the recombination process is catalyzed in prokaryotes and eukaryotes by enzymes that have similar functions and that are evolutionarily related. One of the most important enzymes catalyzing this process in bacteria is referred to as RecA, and this enzyme has two functionally similar counterparts that act in eukaryotic meiosis, Rad51 and Dmc1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis#Th ... rmation.29

KBCid wrote: What if... possibly... maybe... the controlled replication 'system' actually puts out that variation a whopping 10% of the time? Isn't this how a constant variation system would function? How good would an adaptation 'system' be if it produced the same variation a whopping 100% of the time?.

Ivellious wrote:So wait, you see that in an experiment, 10% of the plants of this specific species had the ability to override bad mutational defects.

Yup good old observational evidence / scientific method even.

Ivellious wrote:Now, you claim that this is a universal system of controlled variations

I don't believe I made any such claim. I claim that 1o% of a current population of plant just up and switched out their flawed DNA and reinstalled their unflawed grandparent DNA. This is not a chance occurance. Chance does not perform the exact same highly complex action in 10% of a population. The most logical deduction is that it is sytematic in how it happens. If something is 'systematic' it is not considered a chance occurance, it directly implies that its occurance is controlled sytematically. Thus a 'system' of controlled functionality.
And what functionality occured? a genetically flawed plant made a precision exchange of DNA that completely eliminated its genetic flaws. How much of a stretch is it to assert that there is a system of control for variation in the specie?

Ivellious wrote:and claim that I must refute your groundbreaking discovery. Forgive me, you lost me somewhere around where you have no evidence to support that idea but apparently you can apply this to all life and it's my job to disprove it.

I'not claiming you should do anything. If you don't see the evidence and its logical conclusion then it is your choice. The only thing you would need to disprove here is the nature of the occurance. Controlled or random occurance, those are your choices since you can't deny the observed occurance.

Ivellious wrote:I see a system that has never been recorded within another species to my knowledge, and then I see you jumping to a conclusion that, if actually backed up, might win a Nobel Prize...Perhaps you should write a paper on this idea you have, considering no biologists have considered such a thing existing at all.

So you do recognize a system right? 10% of a genetically damaged specie exchanged disfunctional DNA for functional DNA how much jumping needs to occur in order to discern the obvious conclusion... that you also seem to recognise is in action?

KBCid wrote:Well looky there a system of control against mutationally varied antigens. And how does this system function? It creates variations at a fraction of a % of the systems total output in order to quickly overcome an environmental danger. Is that intelligent or what?

Ivellious wrote:I think we got totally separate things out of that article. As far I as I can understand, the body creates a massive amount of different antibodies so that the odds are higher that one of them will work in the case of an antigen entering the body.

That is exactly what I see so far.

Ivellious wrote:Note that these variations are all caused by random mutations and recombinations, according to the article. As opposed to an organism that only produced very limited types of antibodies, it would make sense that an organism that could produce many antibodies would be naturally selected to survive and likely would be more able to adapt to more regions and climates.

And here is our fork in the road. You say random mutations... I say not. Recombination on the other hand is controlled.
You need to recognise that this system is not a random occurance in its functionality.
When the body is attacted by foreign invaders this system goes into action (repeatable empirical evidence) and produces 'on purpose' variations of antigens and sends them against the invaders. Then, miraculously, a specific variation manages to destroy an invader... and somehow, by magic even, the system then produces just that specific variation that works against the invader. Do you think that just randomly occurs? seriously. I design systems for a living. I recognize a system of control when I see it.

KBCid wrote:Maybe just maybe the genome creates variations of itself that work the same way. Maybe just maybe there is a system / mechanism encoded in the genome that causes a wide range of variations to come into existence so that if an environmental danger succeeds in killing an organism it won't be able to kill every variant currently existing.

Ivellious wrote:Perhaps. But again, you might have to prove that such a universal system exists before telling me that I have to disprove it. Again, you might win a Nobel Prize for this if it turns out to be true. But that's your job to bring out the proof from your speculation, because as of now that is all it amounts to.

Speculation... based on repeatable empirical evidence.

KBCid wrote: As far as you can tell...

Ivellious wrote:Yes, indeed. The experiment only showed me that much. You took that experiment and speculated that an entire universal system exists just like it, without doing any research yourself.

I experiment every day. I am researching all the evidence provided by experiments already performed to show that highly complex systems are acting within life. The evidences for the systems is referenced by nearly every investigator who's papers I have referred to.

KBCid wrote:You are overstepping what the evidence shows.

Ivellious wrote:Haha, I didn't overstep anything. I said that all the experiment showed was that 10% of one type of plant had it, nothing more, nothing less. You are the one venturing into a whole new realm of speculation here.

And in your ratinale 10% of a living population just randomly performed the exact same highly complex function of replacing their DNA and you believe there is no system involved in the occurance.

Plants Defy Mendel's Inheritance Laws, May Prompt Textbook Changes
"If the inheritance mechanism we found in the research plant Arabidopsis exists in animals, too, it's possible that it will be an avenue for gene therapy to treat or cure diseases in both plants and animals."
http://www.google.com/#q=watercress+rep ... 03&bih=625

Even the researchers accept that this is not a random occurance. They even named it "the inheritance mechanism" A mechanism is not random.

"If you take this mutant Arabidopsis, which has two copies of the altered gene, let it seed and then plant the seeds, 90 percent of the offspring will look like the parent, but 10 percent will look like the normal grandparents," Pruitt said. "Our genetic training tells us that's just not possible. This challenges everything we believe.
"We've done a lot of experiments, described in this paper, that show none of the simple explanations account for this skipping of generations by an inherited trait." http://www.google.com/#q=watercress+rep ... 03&bih=625

It is a constant amazement to me to see what others will overlook that is in plain sight.

Ivellious wrote:Your entire post about operational costs is flawed in that it presumes that either the organisms themselves or some great guiding force is choosing traits and eliminating others at will. You also seem to be stating that there is always a "better" trait that can replace a neutral one...which clearly is not even close to reality.

There is no flaw since I posit nothing more than NS should be eliminating something that can be selected against. In this case having something leaching from the 'system' without a positive return is logically something that NS can select against. The better trait in this case is to eliminate a leach from occuring and giving the positively functioning parts more resources and room to operate. Try as you may to twist the meaning here but those are easily discernible facts for a system.

Ivellious wrote:Again, take two bear populations, one with the toxin resistance that I talked about before and another that is literally the same except without the toxin resistance. According to you, the first bear population should die off for absolutely no reason other than "a designer surely would have eliminated it". Natural selection only deals with survival rates, and whether certain traits make an organism stronger or weaker in the game of survival.

Again, any system that uses resources to form a 3 dimensional structure which serves no benefit to the system has a selective advantage in not making the structure. No designer needed or inferred here except by you.

Ivellious wrote:Also, just fyi, your logic dictates that antibiotic resistance should have been weeded out by our designer 30,000 years ago because at the time it was useless. Say what now?

Fyi my logic dictates that antibiotic resistance if it was in some way controlled by natural selection should have been weeded out by NS long before the organism would have come into contact with the antibiotic.
You have no leg to stand on with this point. Forming structure requires resources, spending resources is a negative cost. Negative costs would
be selected against if NS was doing the steering as evolutionists think.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Confirmation bias is just hard at work over there.

That's what I call, the pot calling the kettle black.

jlay wrote:I've seen a couple of threads where Jac and K mopped the floor (for lack of a better descirption) with a coupl eof our resident atheists. They seem totally unaware that it even happened, and continue to stubbornly hold.

That's the problem isn't? Several groups of people looking at the same thing and coming to mutually incompatible conclusions and each thinking their view is not only correct, but obviously so. There's no method accepted by all for evaluating these claims. In fact, i believe that these discussions only serve to reinforce the views of the participants.

KBCid wrote: In this case having something leaching from the 'system' without a positive return is logically something that NS can select against. The better trait in this case is to eliminate a leach from occuring and giving the positively functioning parts more resources and room to operate. Try as you may to twist the meaning here but those are easily discernible facts for a system.
...
Forming structure requires resources, spending resources is a negative cost. Negative costs would
be selected against if NS was doing the steering as evolutionists think.

I'm no biologist, but there seem to be a couple of issues here.

1) Expecting too much of evolutionary processes, perhaps by conflating them with an efficient manager.
2) More importantly, assuming that the optimal structure for the present environment is the optimal overall structure.

1) Perhaps an efficient manager would rid a design of unnecessary features and save money/resources. But would an operator retool a plant at considerable cost to save a pittance on final product? Probably not. Likewise the cost of unnecessary features may not be high enough for them to be eliminated. No scientist has ever claimed that evolution has produced the best possible organism. Also it takes time for features to change. Or an unneeded part may be tied to a very useful part and not easily eliminated without collateral damage. So using the rules above are likely not applicable in this case.

2) The most efficient organism only exists for a specific environment. If a species becomes very well suited to one set of conditions, it may die off when the environment changes. So paradoxically, the best organism may not be the one best suited for the present. A current negative cost may bear a future benefit.

it's complicated.

sandy_mcd wrote:it's complicated.

You got that right Sandy, we do agree on something after all.

KBCid wrote: In this case having something leaching from the 'system' without a positive return is logically something that NS can select against. The better trait in this case is to eliminate a leach from occuring and giving the positively functioning parts more resources and room to operate. Try as you may to twist the meaning here but those are easily discernible facts for a system.
Forming structure requires resources, spending resources is a negative cost. Negative costs would
be selected against if NS was doing the steering as evolutionists think.

sandy_mcd wrote: I'm no biologist, but there seem to be a couple of issues here.
1) Expecting too much of evolutionary processes, perhaps by conflating them with an efficient manager.

In this case Sandy you don't need to be a biologist to understand cause and effect to a system, although being a system engineer would help.
The issues here can be reduced to simple cause and effect. In fact my last posting point is not talking about anything beyond Natural selection effectively controlling what variations come into play. This is exactly what evolutionists say NS can and does do. NS eliminates negative function and promotes positive function by allowing it to continue in the population.
No matter how you may personally want NS to function it is presented in an evolutionary framework as having the power to control the variation in alleles that are presented in the system to be selected from. Thus, if a variation causes a negative effect to the organism NS works to prevent it from occuring, if a variation causes a positive effect then NS works to keep it occuring.

sandy_mcd wrote: 2) More importantly, assuming that the optimal structure for the present environment is the optimal overall structure.

In the system under consideration we are not concerned with what structure is optimal. The dispute is whether a definite resource costing structure that provides ZERO benefit to the system that forms it would be able to keep such a form occuring in the presence of a control (NS) that is supposedly active in eliminating things that are definitely a negative for the system to keep forming.
As an anaology consider this; You go every day and put coins into a machine to get something for your body to use (candy etc.) and every day you get soemthing out that is not food nor is it of any use to you. How long would you keep wasting resources that don't benefit you? Natural selection is supposed to perform this same choice making function and choose good from bad.

sandy_mcd wrote:1) Perhaps an efficient manager would rid a design of unnecessary features and save money/resources. But would an operator retool a plant at considerable cost to save a pittance on final product? Probably not. Likewise the cost of unnecessary features may not be high enough for them to be eliminated. No scientist has ever claimed that evolution has produced the best possible organism.

The question isn't what an efficient manager would do which alludes to an intelligent designer making a choice. The discussion is about a mechanism whose entire function within the system is asserted by evolutionists to be making choices between bad and good. Bad = a cost to the system with either no return or a negative return to the system. Good = a cost to the system that produces a positive return to the system. We have no need to have a consideration for what is considered good and bad as that is easily determined by cause and effect.

sandy_mcd wrote:Also it takes time for features to change. Or an unneeded part may be tied to a very useful part and not easily eliminated without collateral damage. So using the rules above are likely not applicable in this case.

In this case time has a dual consideration. How did an antibiotic variant become sustained in a system where NS should be preventing negative costing variations? NS would not have to have time to eliminate something that it should not have allowed to become prevalent in the population in the first place. It's like saying that it will take a long time for NS to eliminate a lead anchor that grows out of a fishes back which NS allowed to become the norm for the fish. The obvious question is how did NS allow a non-performing structure to arise and become prevalent in the popultaion to begin with.

sandy_mcd wrote:2) The most efficient organism only exists for a specific environment. If a species becomes very well suited to one set of conditions, it may die off when the environment changes. So paradoxically, the best organism may not be the one best suited for the present. A current negative cost may bear a future benefit. it's complicated.

Unfortunately NS can't predict or make decisions about the future it is always functioning in the present deciding whats best during the existence of the organism. So paradoxically one cannot assume that a mechanism that only becomes functional during the existence of an organism and has no memory to have foresight. Understanding how systems function makes things much less complicated.

Unfortunately NS can't predict or make decisions about the future it is always functioning in the present deciding whats best during the existence of the organism. So paradoxically one cannot assume that a mechanism that only becomes functional during the existence of an organism and has no memory to have foresight. Understanding how systems function makes things much less complicated.

K, I love reading your post, but why do you also commit the fallacy of reification? Why would you stand on Darwinian ground to argue against it?

NS doesn't predict or design anything in the present or the future. NS is not a thing. It is a man made construct used to understand what we observe in the natural world. Predictions and designs are made by things, and NS is not a thing. It is an immaterial, abstract concept, yet we treat NS as if it is a mystical force at work.

KBCid: You seem hung up on this efficiency managing system that you think natural selection is. It's not. Natural selection acts through one thing, and one thing only: survival until reproduction. If some trait has no effect on an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, then natural selection has no effect on that trait being passed on. If the effect is negligible, it's the same thing; If my bear needs to eat one blade of grass more a day to maintain it's resistance, odds are that bear has equal odds of survival as any other bear, and so natural selection will have no effect on that trait's survival in the long run.

Jlay: You've got it right in your last post, sort of. KBCid's mistake is taking natural selection and applying some sort of intelligence or force to it, which is not true. Natural selection is not a difficult concept to grasp, and no biologist will tell you that natural selection has goals or anything like that. It's a law of nature, nothing more, nothing less.

KBCid wrote:Unfortunately NS can't predict or make decisions about the future it is always functioning in the present deciding whats best during the existence of the organism. So paradoxically one cannot assume that a mechanism that only becomes functional during the existence of an organism and has no memory to have foresight. Understanding how systems function makes things much less complicated.

jlay wrote:K, I love reading your post, but why do you also commit the fallacy of reification? Why would you stand on Darwinian ground to argue against it? NS doesn't predict or design anything in the present or the future. NS is not a thing. It is a man made construct used to understand what we observe in the natural world. Predictions and designs are made by things, and NS is not a thing. It is an immaterial, abstract concept, yet we treat NS as if it is a mystical force at work.

J, What you should see in my post is that I argue against the assumptions that evo's attribute to NS. They go way beyond what is actually happening and trying to give NS the power to control what comes into existence.
NS if properly understood is an effect that happens when a specific situation occurs. When God formed life he gave it the ability to vary and fit to its specific environment better over time. This is where you need to really evaluate what is involved in His process. Variation has no positive effect unless it can perform a function. The function of variation is to continually adapt an organisms genetic line to the ever changing environment which allows it to persist but, what you need to grasp here is that variability also has a negative side. It has the ability to cause formations that don't fit well with the environment. NS if considered correctly is the effect that occurs to a variation as it attempts to survive within the environment it has come to exist within when there is competition for survival resources.
When 2 athletes compete there is a winner and a loser. NS is properly a description of what makes the winner a winner and a loser a loser. NS is not a force or a cause nor is it a thing. It is simply a description of how the outcome of a competition event is decided.

As you said "NS doesn't predict or design anything in the present or the future. NS is not a thing." and I am in complete agreement with you here. I know it doesn't predict or control design in the present or future because as I pointed out "it only exists during a competition" It's an effect that can only occur during the course of the competition. NS is not a thing just as the terms winner and loser are not things. It is nothing more than a descriptor of an effect occuring during a process.

Thus my argument with evo's shows why their assumption of this effect reaching beyond the existence of the living competitors is in error. the effect described as NS 'if' it had the power they attribute to it would have weeded out the ancient antibiotic resistance that is only effective against present antibiotics before it ever became a normal part of the organism. My logic shows that the effect of NS has no effect on what can come to exist because the mechanism that causes the variations that occur is 'designed' to function as an initiator of variation which is not controlled by the length of existence for the variations that it produces.
So even though competition tests the elements brought to the table by each of the competitors and the outcome defines what is better or worse the process can never have an effect beyond that moment in time when the event occurs. NS simply defines why there is a winner and a loser.
The 16 bit computer existed until the 32 bit computer came into existence and when they were competetively used the 32 bit variation outperformed the 16 bit one. the effect of this competition was that the 16 bit variation was naturally selected against by the consumers who by their actions provided the resources for the manufacturer of the 32 bit system to persist in its manufacture and at the same time the comsumers stopped providing resources for the 16 bit manufacture thus, the 16 bit variation has ceased to exist. But, this selection process does not eliminate the 16 bit variation from being formed again at any time in the future.

Ivellious wrote:KBCid: You seem hung up on this efficiency managing system that you think natural selection is. It's not. Natural selection acts through one thing, and one thing only: survival until reproduction. If some trait has no effect on an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, then natural selection has no effect on that trait being passed on. If the effect is negligible, it's the same thing; If my bear needs to eat one blade of grass more a day to maintain it's resistance, odds are that bear has equal odds of survival as any other bear, and so natural selection will have no effect on that trait's survival in the long run.

NS doesn't act. NS is a description of what makes a winner a winner and a loser a loser. It has no power to describe anything beyond that point.
Evolutionists wish to attribute NS with the power to control variation by saying that it can eliminate bad variations from continuing.
Now about this "efficiency managing system";

Natural Selection
Natural selection is the differential survival and/or reproduction of organisms as a function of their physical attributes. Because of their phenotypes, which are due to the amalgam of traits that make up an individual, some individuals do better than others. The concept of selection is central to Darwin's theory of evolution, and forms the conerstone of many theories in the field of animal behavior. Selection is defined as some sort of functional relationship between fitness and phenotype and we can easily describe fitness in terms of three kinds of curves:
1) directional selection in which the trait is linearly related to fitness,
2) stabilizing in which there is an optimal value for the trait of interest, and
3) disruptive in which individuals with the smallest and largest values of the trait have the highest fitness and individuals with intermediate values are at a fintess disadvantage.
As we will see each mode of selection alters the mean or variance of the phenotypic trait in a population or species. In the long term, directional selection can have the most dramatic impact on the evolution of a species. Directional selection can lead to the formation of a new type from an existing type. This contrasts with the action of stabilizing selection which maintains the existing type without change in mean over long periods of time. Stabilizing selection eliminates the extremes in a distribution of phenotypes, and as such it leads to a refinement of the exisiting type. By eliminating individuals from the center of the distribution, disruptive selection favors the individuals in the tails or more extreme values of the phenotype. Disruptive selection can lead to the formation of two new types from a single exisiting type.
http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/~barrylab/ ... chor679082

Types of selection
Natural selection can act on any heritable phenotypic trait, and selective pressure can be produced by any aspect of the environment, including sexual selection and competition with members of the same or other species. However, this does not imply that natural selection is always directional and results in adaptive evolution; natural selection often results in the maintenance of the status quo by eliminating less fit variants.

Evolution by means of natural selection
By the definition of fitness, individuals with greater fitness are more likely to contribute offspring to the next generation, while individuals with lesser fitness are more likely to die early or fail to reproduce. As a result, alleles that on average result in greater fitness become more abundant in the next generation, while alleles that in general reduce fitness become rarer. If the selection forces remain the same for many generations, beneficial alleles become more and more abundant, until they dominate the population, while alleles with a lesser fitness disappear.

Directionality of selectionMain article: Directional selection
When some component of a trait is heritable, selection will alter the frequencies of the different alleles, or variants of the gene that produces the variants of the trait. Selection can be divided into three classes, on the basis of its effect on allele frequencies.[66]
Directional selection occurs when a certain allele has a greater fitness than others, resulting in an increase of its frequency. This process can continue until the allele is fixed and the entire population shares the fitter phenotype. It is directional selection that is illustrated in the antibiotic resistance example above.
Far more common is stabilizing selection (which is commonly confused with purifying selection[67][68]), which lowers the frequency of alleles that have a deleterious effect on the phenotype – that is, produce organisms of lower fitness. This process can continue until the allele is eliminated from the population. Purifying selection results in functional genetic features, such as protein-coding genes or regulatory sequences, being conserved over time due to selective pressure against deleterious variants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Apparently it is quite well understood and believed by evo's that anything which affects the efficiency of an organisms reproduction is managed by the system called natural selection. Thus it is believed by evolutionist that there is an "efficiency managing system".

So, which reproducing system has a more selectable advantage;
1) One that produces an antigen which provides no advantage against an antibody
2) One that produces an antigen which provides an advantage against an antibody

It is quite easy to deduce that the organism that is spending its resources and time producing components which actually help it to survive will out perform and function better than one that uses resources and time producing components that don't provide any benefit, it is quite easy to infer that NS should not have allowed a trait with a negative cost to the organism to become fixed in its population.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Confirmation bias is just hard at work over there.

That's what I call, the pot calling the kettle black.

jlay wrote:I've seen a couple of threads where Jac and K mopped the floor (for lack of a better descirption) with a coupl eof our resident atheists. They seem totally unaware that it even happened, and continue to stubbornly hold.

That's the problem isn't? Several groups of people looking at the same thing and coming to mutually incompatible conclusions and each thinking their view is not only correct, but obviously so. There's no method accepted by all for evaluating these claims. In fact, i believe that these discussions only serve to reinforce the views of the participants.

Their may be a small chance of convincing either participant on each side. I think we understand that. Maybe not now, but later on down the road? Maybe, maybe not. It's good to keep in mind the spectators who may be "on the fence." It's these types of discussions which led me to change my views on a few topics.

KBCid,

Several of your recent arguments have been based on an error that I frequently hear from people ho oppose evolutionary theory: "Natural selection is supposed to weed out less-fit traits, so why are we exhibiting these "less-fit" traits?" Evolutionists do not argue that our species is the final product of an historic evolution. They argue that evolution is an ongoing process, and natural selection is continuing to occur as we continue to reproduce. If anything, inefficient design serves as an argument against intelligent design more than anything.

With regard to your operational efficiency argument: are you aware that over 95% of human DNA does NOT code for any functional protein? Certain portions of these non-coding sequences have been identified as functioning in transcription regulation, but the majority of these sequences appear to serve no function at all. Scientists expect that a certain few of these non-coding sequences serve a purpose because the precise base-pair sequence has been conserved throughout long periods of time, suggesting a selective advantage in having these genes. Most of the non-coding sequences vary greatly throughout history, suggesting that mutation/variation in these sequences does not provide advantage or disadvantage in terms of survival. Artificial excision of large portions of non-coding DNA has been performed without subsequent impairment or improvement of any function. Didn't you argue that intelligence would never overlook the negative cost of maintaining useless parts when designing a system? I do not find it surprising that DNA sequences associated with antibiotic resistance were found in DNA that existed prior to the introduction of these antibiotics, and if anything the existence of such a template in non-coding DNA sequences could contribute to the rapid development of antibiotic resistance that we have seen in the past few decades.

Hands are tired...I will elaborate tomorrow. Goodnight

E

Eureka wrote:{Blah blah blah} Hands are tired...I will elaborate tomorrow.

All utter nonsense. NS would have weeded out weak hands.

:p

But I am a WAYYYYY faster texter than anyone from a million years ago. Proof of evolution.

Eureka wrote:KBCid, Several of your recent arguments have been based on an error that I frequently hear from people ho oppose evolutionary theory: "Natural selection is supposed to weed out less-fit traits, so why are we exhibiting these "less-fit" traits?" Evolutionists do not argue that our species is the final product of an historic evolution. They argue that evolution is an ongoing process, and natural selection is continuing to occur as we continue to reproduce. If anything, inefficient design serves as an argument against intelligent design more than anything.

I have already addressed your POV;

Natural Selection
Natural selection is the differential survival and/or reproduction of organisms as a function of their physical attributes. Because of their phenotypes, which are due to the amalgam of traits that make up an individual, some individuals do better than others. The concept of selection is central to Darwin's theory of evolution, and forms the conerstone of many theories in the field of animal behavior. Selection is defined as some sort of functional relationship between fitness and phenotype and we can easily describe fitness in terms of three kinds of curves:
1) directional selection in which the trait is linearly related to fitness,
2) stabilizing in which there is an optimal value for the trait of interest, and
3) disruptive in which individuals with the smallest and largest values of the trait have the highest fitness and individuals with intermediate values are at a fintess disadvantage.
As we will see each mode of selection alters the mean or variance of the phenotypic trait in a population or species. In the long term, directional selection can have the most dramatic impact on the evolution of a species. Directional selection can lead to the formation of a new type from an existing type. This contrasts with the action of stabilizing selection which maintains the existing type without change in mean over long periods of time. Stabilizing selection eliminates the extremes in a distribution of phenotypes, and as such it leads to a refinement of the exisiting type. By eliminating individuals from the center of the distribution, disruptive selection favors the individuals in the tails or more extreme values of the phenotype. Disruptive selection can lead to the formation of two new types from a single exisiting type.
http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/~barrylab/ ... chor679082

Types of selection
Natural selection can act on any heritable phenotypic trait, and selective pressure can be produced by any aspect of the environment, including sexual selection and competition with members of the same or other species. However, this does not imply that natural selection is always directional and results in adaptive evolution; natural selection often results in the maintenance of the status quo by eliminating less fit variants.

Evolution by means of natural selection
By the definition of fitness, individuals with greater fitness are more likely to contribute offspring to the next generation, while individuals with lesser fitness are more likely to die early or fail to reproduce. As a result, alleles that on average result in greater fitness become more abundant in the next generation, while alleles that in general reduce fitness become rarer. If the selection forces remain the same for many generations, beneficial alleles become more and more abundant, until they dominate the population, while alleles with a lesser fitness disappear.

Directionality of selectionMain article: Directional selection
When some component of a trait is heritable, selection will alter the frequencies of the different alleles, or variants of the gene that produces the variants of the trait. Selection can be divided into three classes, on the basis of its effect on allele frequencies.[66]
Directional selection occurs when a certain allele has a greater fitness than others, resulting in an increase of its frequency. This process can continue until the allele is fixed and the entire population shares the fitter phenotype. It is directional selection that is illustrated in the antibiotic resistance example above.
Far more common is stabilizing selection (which is commonly confused with purifying selection[67][68]), which lowers the frequency of alleles that have a deleterious effect on the phenotype – that is, produce organisms of lower fitness. This process can continue until the allele is eliminated from the population. Purifying selection results in functional genetic features, such as protein-coding genes or regulatory sequences, being conserved over time due to selective pressure against deleterious variants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Apparently it is quite well understood and believed by evo's that anything which affects the efficiency of an organisms reproduction is managed by the system called natural selection. Thus it is believed by evolutionist that there is an "efficiency managing system". So if you want to validate your POV you will have to srgue with other evo's. Of course you haven't addressed how something that provides no benefit became fixed in the population to begin with.

Eureka wrote:With regard to your operational efficiency argument: are you aware that over 95% of human DNA does NOT code for any functional protein? Certain portions of these non-coding sequences have been identified as functioning in transcription regulation, but the majority of these sequences appear to serve no function at all. Scientists expect that a certain few of these non-coding sequences serve a purpose because the precise base-pair sequence has been conserved throughout long periods of time, suggesting a selective advantage in having these genes. Most of the non-coding sequences vary greatly throughout history, suggesting that mutation/variation in these sequences does not provide advantage or disadvantage in terms of survival.

I understand that there are suggestions. Suggestions are like opinions and opinions are like...

Eureka wrote:Artificial excision of large portions of non-coding DNA has been performed without subsequent impairment or improvement of any function. Didn't you argue that intelligence would never overlook the negative cost of maintaining useless parts when designing a system?

Indeed intelligence would not overlook a negative cost. The problem you have here is that you don't know what the non-coding sections were intended to do nor do you know how or when they are designed to operate. As scientists are learning now a great many systems in our design are redundant to insure continuity. So what if the excision was of a section that was another redundancy? then what? what if the excision was for coding that deals with variation control of ofspring? What if the excision was a section that is saving a grandparent version of DNA that is saved for use in case of major errors?
You simply don't know what the excised portion was for since you don't understand completely how our genome functions. All you do know is what scientists tell you to believe and you feel it must be true.

Eureka wrote:I do not find it surprising that DNA sequences associated with antibiotic resistance were found in DNA that existed prior to the introduction of these antibiotics, and if anything the existence of such a template in non-coding DNA sequences could contribute to the rapid development of antibiotic resistance that we have seen in the past few decades. Hands are tired...I will elaborate tomorrow. Goodnight E

Evolution can do anything... there are no hard rules... it can explain anything we observe... I can't argue with a belief.