Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
Switch to Forum Live View Spreading v. Adding
3 years ago  ::  Mar 04, 2015 - 5:40PM #21
rsielin
Posts: 4,997

Mar 4, 2015 -- 5:14PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:

A bit of thread cleanup. Please stay on topic and off other posters.


Thanks JC. I agree.


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 04, 2015 - 6:32PM #22
McAtheist
Posts: 9,224

roymond: I haven't read every single post in all the threads going back five years, just skimmed a lot of them, but I still haven't encountered a definition provided by YECers as to what "add up" is supposed to mean.  Do you remember one at all?


I don't think a consistent definition of this term has ever been presented. It's been my experience that almost every specific question about the so-called YEC model produced nothing much but the chirping of crickets in the distance.


Additionally, remember that whatever definition the YEC team uses, that definition has to also apply to the "YEC super-speciation" that took place after the flood.  (You know, where a pair of "frog kind" reproduced and migrated and YEC super-speciated to cover the world in the 4500+ species that exist now.)  This might be part of the reason the YEC team is very reluctant to actually be pinned down on what their "scientific" terminology means.


BTW, I understand your desire to use a clear and simplified example to illustrate a scientific point; it's a great teaching technique.  However, while most school kids readily understand that something is a simplified illustration and not a rigorous representation of reality, YECs tend to jump on the invented nature of the example and completely disregard the point.  So, if you present the actual complicated process, they tend to focus on one small detail and ignore the science; if you present a simplified example, they slam you for it being unrealistic and ignore the science.


I'm not trying to discourage you --- just telling you what I've seen here over the years.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2015 - 10:01AM #23
MMarcoe
Posts: 20,907

I think we can safely say that the YEC who's always harping about mutations adding up has no response to this thread, and he knows it.


1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is the original nothingness of the universe.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2015 - 2:54PM #24
Roymond
Posts: 3,779

Mar 4, 2015 -- 11:08AM, Oncomintrain wrote:


A little digging, a little reading, and I can tell you this:


There are two big factors in whether the colors of two parents can be "mixed" in the offspring (e.g. a blue cow and a yellow bull producing a green calf).


1. Are the factors at the same genetic loci? In other words are blue and yellow two different alleles at the same genetic site, or are blue/not blue and yellow/not yellow two different genetic factors at two different loci. If the latter, then color (or at least the biochemical processes that produce color) can be mixed.


2. If they are two alleles of the same loci, are the two versions codominant? If blue and yellow were alleles at the same loci, but happened to be codominant alleles, then the effects of both would be active. In this case, again, the color (or at least the biochemical processes that produce the color) could be mixed.


Of course depending on the underlying genetic makeup of either/both parents, even IF the alleles are at different loci, or if the blue and yellow alleles are codominant, you might still end up with offspring who are yellow, blue, or neither.




Good stuff.  From what I remember about horses, there are five loci right in a row for hair color; if they're all (what's called) red, then the horse comes out black, because all five are expressed and the result is one heck of a lot of pigment.  So I could have gone with just red genes "adding up", because the more red gets expressed, the darker the result.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2015 - 3:01PM #25
Roymond
Posts: 3,779

Mar 4, 2015 -- 11:50AM, Oncomintrain wrote:


Mar 4, 2015 -- 11:47AM, rsielin wrote:


OT, is there an example of two genes for different colors at separate loci yielding a hair color that unambigously conforms to pigment mixing rules? I didn't see it on your link or extending links off your article. I'm still looking but have yet to find that example. 




I do not have the depth on this to address that. I'm strictly talking hypothetical case.




With horses and cows it works, but there are more than just two loci so the adding isn't always straightforward, especially since the order matters; e.g. RRWWW, RWRWW, RWWRW, etc., don't all come out the same even though the number of R and W are the same.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2015 - 3:17PM #26
Roymond
Posts: 3,779

Mar 4, 2015 -- 6:32PM, McAtheist wrote:


roymond: I haven't read every single post in all the threads going back five years, just skimmed a lot of them, but I still haven't encountered a definition provided by YECers as to what "add up" is supposed to mean.  Do you remember one at all?


I don't think a consistent definition of this term has ever been presented. It's been my experience that almost every specific question about the so-called YEC model produced nothing much but the chirping of crickets in the distance.


Additionally, remember that whatever definition the YEC team uses, that definition has to also apply to the "YEC super-speciation" that took place after the flood.  (You know, where a pair of "frog kind" reproduced and migrated and YEC super-speciated to cover the world in the 4500+ species that exist now.)  This might be part of the reason the YEC team is very reluctant to actually be pinned down on what their "scientific" terminology means.


BTW, I understand your desire to use a clear and simplified example to illustrate a scientific point; it's a great teaching technique.  However, while most school kids readily understand that something is a simplified illustration and not a rigorous representation of reality, YECs tend to jump on the invented nature of the example and completely disregard the point.  So, if you present the actual complicated process, they tend to focus on one small detail and ignore the science; if you present a simplified example, they slam you for it being unrealistic and ignore the science.


I'm not trying to discourage you --- just telling you what I've seen here over the years.




That fits with what I've read.  I tend to go with what I know works, but you're right -- with them, it may not.


I read another month's worth of old threads this morning, and have just about decided there's no point reading further:  the YEC posts are constantly the same, the same dodging, the same ignoring anything complex, the same repetitive presentation of debunked arguments, the same linking to articles that start right off with known falsehoods.  The only real bright spots in the last several score threads have been very simple, straightforward attempts by non-YECers, though I had hopes for 57's "sand on the beach" thread until the second page.  My favorite so far is actually rsielin's image of the aurora, asking what OT writers would have made of it.


I tried to find a species with just two genes for pigment, with no luck -- nature seems to "like" color, so there are multiple pigment genes with multiple "slots" (loci) all over the place, plus a lot of pigmentation going on from compounds that aren't specifically pigments.


Anyway, it's discouraging; I thought a simple illustration might get through, but the silence from those who need to hear has been depressing.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2015 - 3:21PM #27
Roymond
Posts: 3,779

Mar 5, 2015 -- 10:01AM, MMarcoe wrote:


I think we can safely say that the YEC who's always harping about mutations adding up has no response to this thread, and he knows it.




Silence can definitely be informative.


I thought about redoing this using horses, since though in teaching terms it's still a messy place to start, it's not all that complex.  But after Mcatheist's post above, I can see what the responses will be like, so I'm not inclined to try. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 08, 2015 - 2:59PM #28
rsielin
Posts: 4,997

Mar 5, 2015 -- 2:54PM, Roymond wrote:

Good stuff.  From what I remember about horses, there are five loci right in a row for hair color; if they're all (what's called) red, then the horse comes out black, because all five are expressed and the result is one heck of a lot of pigment.  So I could have gone with just red genes "adding up", because the more red gets expressed, the darker the result.


Great, we can test this.


Lets get five equal cups of red pigment paint and mix thoroughly into a single pail and then examine the resulting color. Red +red +red +red +red=???  If it’s black, then the OP is confirmed; if still red, we have a science understanding problem and confirmation that Genes do not conform to color pigment rules, genes follow the rules of molecular biochemistry.


Do you understand the science yet? I would have thought the light bulb would have gone on with OT’s explanation but maybe not.  In all honesty, most science literate people would have responded to a correction of their understanding with a mea culpa, appreciation and then learning. But you doubled down on your science misrepresentation immediately and continued doubling down for 20+ posts so far. Why?


Moderated by Roymond on Mar 08, 2015 - 08:29PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 08, 2015 - 3:21PM #29
rsielin
Posts: 4,997

Mar 4, 2015 -- 2:42AM, Roymond wrote:

I haven't read every single post in all the threads going back five years, just skimmed a lot of them, but I still haven't encountered a definition provided by YECers as to what "add up" is supposed to mean.  Do you remember one at all?


Here is 57's theory on mutations from awhile ago. He repeated this many times but then reduced it to the rant "you can't tell me how mutations add up".


Oct 31, 2009 -- 4:43PM, 57 wrote:

A random mutation switching on or off a gene still doesn't answer the question.  I know Sis is trying to answer the question but she has failed once again.  


Here's why....if you are going to change a fin into a arm with a hand on the end of it...or...even change a scale into a feather, something else with a major morphological change you need many of these switches to be turned on and off many, many times.  These switches need to be "operated" so to speak at the proper time and in the proper place. 


The evos tell us the morphological changes are small. Hardly noticeable in most instances. They say over time a change can be seen.  So, what does  this mean? Each small change according to Sis is caused by switching on and off a  gene. Like others, including the lecturer the assumption is that these mutations happen all the time. But, to have the right switch turn on or off by a random process...with so many places for it to occur....when even the evos all admit that the "beneficial" mutations are extremely rare...less than a very small fraction of a percent...evolutionism fails. 


Where is the math that shows these mutations adding up? The SECRET is....they don't have it.


57 has a very mechanistic directed linear approach to evolution that is a gross misunderstanding of the science.


It is important that science misrepresentation and misunderstanding get corrected at the earliest mention least they turn into creationist monstrosities.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook