[
Replying to post 1212 by Neatras]
You do not get to declare there is no other answer. I have the other answer.
The answer is we're not dying as quickly or as easily as our ancestors did. We survive infections, we survive genetic anomalies. We survive due to the power of industrialized medicine and advanced sciences. This is something our ancestors did not have access to, so when they were affected by deleterious mutations, they died. That's called selection.
We have relaxed selection to the extent that damaging mutations are building up in the populace. This is something that does not happen in a natural environment in which selection occurs naturally.
There isn't even a challenge to evolutionary theory here. It's explained point-blank at the start: SELECTION PREVENTS THE BUILD-UP OF NEGATIVE MUTATIONS. WHEN YOU REMOVE SELECTION, BUILD-UP OCCURS.
This may be Kimura's theory but it has shown not to be correct.
Mutation Accumulation and the Extinction of Small Populations
Michael Lynch, John Conery, and Reinhard Burger
Although extensive work has been done on the relationship between population size and the risk of extinction due to demographic and environmental stochasticity, the role of genetic deterioration in the extinction process is poorly understood. We develop a general theoretical approach for evaluating the risk of small populations to extinction via the accumulation of mildly deleterious mutations, and we support this with extensive computer simulations. Unlike previous attempts to model the genetic consequences of small population size, our approach is genetically explicit and fully accounts for the mutations inherited by a founder population as well as those introduced by subsequent mutation. Application of empirical estimates of the properties of spontaneous deleterious mutations leads to the conclusion that populations with effective sizes smaller than 100 (and actual sizes smaller than 1,000) are highly vulnerable to extinction via a mutational meltdown on timescales of approximately 100 generations. We point out a number of reasons why this is likely to be an overly optimistic view. Thus, from a purely genetic perspective, current management policies that provide formal protection to species only after they have dwindled to 100-1,000 individuals are inadequate. A doubling of the deleterious mutation rate, as can result from the release of mutagenic pollutants by human activity, is expected to reduce the longevity of a population by about 50%. As some investigators have previously suggested, the genetic load of a population can be readily purged by intentional inbreeding. However, this effect is at best transient, as intentional inbreeding can only enhance the probability of fixation of deleterious alleles, and those alleles that are purged are rapidly replaced with new mutations.
The above article along with Stanford's work totally falsifies Kimura's theory.
This is morally repugnant. You are operating on the same level of Mormons who posthumously baptize people. Taking the character of a dead man and superimposing your own ideology onto them should warrant immediate reprimanding from everyone you speak to. That's the level you operate on?
You never know.
That a scientific journal uses the word "may" does not imply it lacks merit or credibility, despite your obvious failure to imply otherwise. You offer no correction or counterargument, and merely single out the use of the word "may" twice. This is not good argumentation.
Ok, we are having a little trouble following the flow of the argument here. The article with "May" in it was being used to refute my argument. All I was doing is pointing out that it did not refute my argument. So my argument on Kimura's work still remains untouched by any of your articles, because they express nothing definite.
You are not being scientific, and yet you call yourself EarthScienceGuy. The use of the word "may" implies a lack of absolutist rhetoric and a careful incentive to investigate.
Your rhetoric is bad, ESG. You seem to expect that scientists always use absolute certainty when they make claims, and when they make claims you disagree with, you dismiss them anyway. It is the intellectually honest position to make statements about possibility.
Really,
The law of conservation of energy states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy, and thermodynamic processes are therefore subject to the principle of conservation of energy.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. The total entropy of a system and its surroundings can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, or is undergoing a reversible process
theory of special relativity, determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and he showed that the speed of light within a vacuum is the same no matter the speed at which an observer travels.
Law of Biogenesis principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.
None of these law have the word may in them. In fact it is the certainty in the predictions that prove a theory.
or this prediction by creationist Walt Brown.
In the seventh edition of Dr. Walt Brown's explanation of the hydroplate theory entitled In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (2001), the author makes a straightforward prediction based on his theory.
"Beneath major mountains are large volumes of pooled saltwater," he predicts. The reason for such trapped water is that according to his theory, there was initially a large volume of water trapped beneath the earth's surface, which eventually escaped in a catastrophic rupture, leading to a global cataclysmic flood. Due to the water's forceful escape, the edges of today's continents were formed as sediments were blasted away, and eventually the removal of material led to an upward movement of the basement rock below. The continents slid away from this upward movement, towards a deep basin that formed opposite -- the Pacific basin. Eventually, they ground to a halt in a major "compression event" which Dr. Brown describes and which explains many features found on the earth's surface today.
Dr. Brown explains the fact that some of the water which did not escape should still be trapped in certain parts of the earth, deep underneath the surface: "As mountains buckled up, the remaining water under the plate tended to fill in large voids. Some pooled watershould still remain in cracked and contorted layers of rock. This would partly explain the reduced mass beneath mountains that gravity measurements have shown for over a century. Friction at the base of skidding hydroplates generated immense heat, enough to melt rock and produce huge volumes of magma. Crushing produced similar effects, as broken and extremely compressed blocks and particles slid past each other" (104-105).
Dr. Brown published those words in 2001. In this Forbes story from 2008, the findings of a geothermal company seem to powerfully confirm Dr. Brown's theory and prediction. Entitled "Journey to the Center of the Earth," the article describes an Australian company involved in geothermal energy production. As the diagram above shows, geothermal companies look for heat in the earth, usually at areas where there is magma under the surface (note that Dr. Brown discusses the creation of magma in the paragraph above). The company, Geodynamics in this case, will inject water into the earth where it will be heated, and force heated water up a different outlet well. This hot water will then be used to create steam that generates electricity.
The Forbes article from 2008 explains that this process does not always go exactly as planned, due in part to incorrect assumptions on the part of conventional geologists: "Geologists and engineers have a lot to learn about the rock formations they will encounter. Geodynamics was surprised to find hot, high-pressure water in the granite it first thought was relatively dry. While that is ultimately a pleasant discovery for the company, the surprise cost it dearly: The pressurized water led to the failure of Geodynamics' second well in 2005 and nearly bankrupted the infant company."
The discovery of hot, high-pressure water is exactly what Dr. Brown's hydroplate theory would expect to find in deep wells drilled into the types of areas he describes in the above paragraph. The fact that he predicted this sort of discovery in 2001 and that Forbes published a report of that taking place in 2008 is powerful confirmation of Dr. Brown's predictions and the validity of his theory.
"May" is used when a scientist has no evidence for their pet theory.
PROVIDE EVIDENCE
I did just because you do not like the repercussions of evidence provided does not mean that I did not provide evidence. In fact you even mentioned the evidence I provided.
Yes that is what we demand and observation shows that to be true. It has to be true since genetic entropy does happen.
Biodiversity had to spread out in 4000 years not 6 thousand.
PROVIDE EVIDENCE
Why I was agree with you and correcting you.
They were drowned in Noah's flood. Or they died of old age. You asked the wrong question. The question is when did genetic entropy start has it always occurred? It MAY be that genetic entropy started at the fall of man.
WHERE ARE THE FOSSILS OF THESE PERFECT ORGANISMS? The creationist side is incapable of making falsifiable claims about the fossil record without borrowing heavily from evolutionary theory. That you cannot substantiate your side is a point against your side.
Quote:
Quote:
It is based on consistently checked and verified methodologies that are supported by all modern branches of physics. Radiometric dating has always been a creationist's nightmare, and to this day your side has to deflect by focusing on carbon dating. You can't address radiometric dating.
No, we just do not accept naturalistic assumptions with regard to radioactive dating. Naturalistic theories have trouble with explaining how there is carbon 14 in diamonds.
PROVIDE EVIDENCE
For what, that there is carbon 14 in diamonds? Really?
YOUR INTERPRETATION IS NOT EVIDENCE.
Well, you read it then and what do you think it sounds like.
Job 40
"5 “Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
17 Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
19 It ranks first among the works of God.
I do not need to be dogmatic on the issue, seems like a dinosaur. Others do interpret this beast as a dinosaur. The Jewish interpretation would be a liberal interpretation of Scripture.
Ha, Ha,
1. This iron preservation method cannot happen without the organism being buried in water. With the number of organisms that have been found with soft tissue it would have had to have been a very large flood.
2. A huge assumption has to be made that this type of method of preservation could preserve soft tissue for 190 million years.
PROVIDE EVIDENCE
1. the experiment was preformed in solution.
2. when iron is released form the hemoglobin it needs to be in an adiabatic condition otherwise the iron would react with the oxygen.
3. soft tissue can only be preserved through rapid burial.
Quote:
Virus pandemics do not eliminate all of man because we have immune systems and can develop immunity to specific strains. This is not due to mutation. I suggest you take a course on virology. Your claim that viruses lose virulence because of mutations, and not because of host immunity/erasure is laughable.
You may wish this to be the case but that is not what experiment shows.
So tell me, when Europeans colonized the Americas and introduced various plagues to the natives, why did the plagues only wipe out much of the native population, and not the European settlers? That you claim experiments show otherwise implies you think that collective immunity is not an adequate explanation. Did genetic entropy momentarily reverse, giving those viruses and diseases increased fitness only within Native Americans, and then die out again conveniently mapped by the models of virology that also support the theory of evolution?
While there have been numerous adaptations within the H1N1 genome, most of the genetic changes we document here appear to be non-adaptive, and much of the change appears to be degenerative. We suggest H1N1 has been undergoing natural genetic attenuation, and that significant attenuation may even occur during a single pandemic. This process may play a role in natural pandemic cessation and has apparently contributed to the exponential decline in mortality rates over time, as seen in all major human influenza strains. These findings may be relevant to the development of strategies for managing influenza pandemics and strain evolution.
A new look at an old virus: patterns of mutation accumulation in the human H1N1 influenza virus since 1918
Robert W Carter1 and John C Sanfordcorresponding author2
Quote:
H1N1 is not extinct, and in fact has come back to haunt humanity roughly every 20 years. In every case, the new strain that emerges is not one that is "less accosted by mutations" as Sanford's cronies would have us believe, but because they circulate through a series of hosts, discretely. It is only when the virulence becomes especially hostile, and the genes become more favorable to further infection that H1N1 arises and terrorizes the populace. There is no evolutionary model that demands viruses kill every member of a population in some kind of arms race. At no point has the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory or viral biology ever been burdened by the question of why viruses don't wipe out populations all the time, because we observe the subtle balance between virulence and host population stability. We also know about immune systems and the fact that strains of viruses are constantly undergoing mutation. If what you say is true, and all H1N1 populations are equally descendant from some "perfect viral strain," then why didn't that strain wipe out all humans? Why are all the modern populations not equally as extinct as the strain that circulated in 2008?
We document multiple extinction events, including the previously known extinction of the human H1N1 lineage in the 1950s, and an apparent second extinction of the human H1N1 lineage in 2009. These extinctions appear to be due to a continuous accumulation of mutations. At the time of its disappearance in 2009, the human H1N1 lineage had accumulated over 1400 point mutations (more than 10% of the genome), including approximately 330 non-synonymous changes (7.4% of all codons). The accumulation of both point mutations and non-synonymous amino acid changes occurred at constant rates (μ = 14.4 and 2.4 new mutations/year, respectively), and mutations accumulated uniformly across the entire influenza genome. We observed a continuous erosion over time of codon-specificity in H1N1, including a shift away from host (human, swine, and bird [duck]) codon preference patterns.
A new look at an old virus: patterns of mutation accumulation in the human H1N1 influenza virus since 1918
Robert W Carter1 and John C Sanfordcorresponding author2
Quote:
Then we move onto mice. Your side still needs to demonstrate that mice are somehow immune to genetic entropy, or are otherwise more "perfecter" than most other genomes, because we've been performing experiments on them for decades, and in the centuries we've studied them there have been no indications of impending mutational collapse.
What source tells you that mice do not have a genetic load?
Mice do not have as many mutations per generation as humans do and they also have a larger population size.
So where is the evidence of genetic degradation of mouse genomics? Mice have a much shorter generational cycle compared to humans, so by your bad claims they must have accumulated more bad mutations by now, and should be well on their way to extinction. WHY DOES YOUR MODEL NOT PREDICT ANYTHING VALID?
Back in 1968, ethologist John B. Calhoun set up an experiment popularly called “Mouse Utopia.� Four pairs of mice were given a large, comfortable habitat with no predators and plenty of food and water.
Predictably, the mouse population increased rapidly–once the mice were established in their new homes, their population doubled every 55 days. But after 211 days of explosive growth, reproduction began–mysteriously–to slow. For the next 245 days, the mouse population doubled only once every 145 days.
The birth rate continued to decline. As births and death reached parity, the mouse population stopped growing. Finally the last breeding female died, and the whole colony went extinct.
source
As I’ve mentioned before Israel is (AFAIK) the only developed country in the world with a TFR above replacement.
It has long been known that overcrowding leads to population stress and reduced reproduction, but overcrowding can only explain why the mouse population began to shrink–not why it died out. Surely by the time there were only a few breeding pairs left, things had become comfortable enough for the remaining mice to resume reproducing. Why did the population not stabilize at some comfortable level?
Professor Bruce Charlton suggests an alternative explanation: the removal of selective pressures on the mouse population resulted in increasing mutational load, until the entire population became too mutated to reproduce
Quote:
I will now spend an inordinate amount of time tearing apart every single false claim you make in this sub-forum over the next few days. Happy posting
I would like to say nice try but it really wasn't that difficult to debunk all of your so called "facts". I would call them fairy tales personally.
