Transitional locust discovered in forgotten stash of amber

[HMS_Beagle]

He doesn't understand information theory, either. What I don't understand is why folks keep responding to his posts.

Right now he's the only YEC chew toy we have in NS301.

[Juvenal]

But in an astronomically large population?

We have a few billion base pairs in our genome... and there are a few billion of us. And given the average number of new mutations per person, that's enough for every single point possible mutation to have occurred - including those that reverse previous point mutations that have become widespread.

Similar calculations can be done for bacteria, nematodes and other high-population organisms.

Roy

Props.

[Juvenal]

Right now he's the only YEC chew toy we have in NS301.

That's like playing a crooked roulette wheel 'cause it's the only game in town. Allow me to suggest there's an alternative, either way.

Apparently you don't understand evolution either, as evidenced by the stupid term "devolution".

And that's just uncalled for. The guy knows he doesn't understand evolution. He's asking questions! Just answer them, okay.

Sheesh.

[tabibito]

Apparently you don't understand evolution either, as evidenced by the stupid term "devolution".

And mutations that result in non-viable organisms have happened many times.

Evolution is not a steady progression toward some sort of perfection. It's driven by random mutation and genetic drift, which together may or may not give a reproductive advantage to an organism depending upon environmental conditions which change over time.

Many, many species have gone extinct in Earth' history.

That's a fact, Jack.

K54

True enough, I only understand the most elementary of the principles - just enough that I can identify Jorge's stories as fairy tales.
I also know well enough not to pay attention to the teachings of bombastic blowhards - even when they're right, the teaching is tainted.

[KingsGambit]

Apparently you don't understand evolution either, as evidenced by the stupid term "devolution".

And mutations that result in non-viable organisms have happened many times.

Evolution is not a steady progression toward some sort of perfection. It's driven by random mutation and genetic drift, which together may or may not give a reproductive advantage to an organism depending upon environmental conditions which change over time.

Many, many species have gone extinct in Earth' history.

That's a fact, Jack.

K54

Chill out.

[klaus54]

That's like playing a crooked roulette wheel 'cause it's the only game in town. Allow me to suggest there's an alternative, either way.



And that's just uncalled for. The guy knows he doesn't understand evolution. He's asking questions! Just answer them, okay.

Sheesh.

Yes, it's apparent he's brainwashed in YECism. And I believe I did give a brief explanation of how evolution works in that same post.

K54

[klaus54]

Chill out.

Why? Everything I said was true.

I agree it was harsh.

But it was true.

Unlike another poster here who is harsher than harsh and nearly everything he writes is a distortion of an outright lie.

How much abuse of the sensibilities are we supposed to take?

K54

[Jorge]

He doesn't understand information theory, either. What I don't understand is why folks keep responding to his posts.

Hehe ...

Listen, Mao Tzu Tong (or whatever you call yourself), I have forgotten more information theory than you'll ever know (and that's not just talk - although you fantasize that it is). You are obligated to write posts such as the one above because, well, because just like your ideological comrades you absolutely must discredit and demonize people like me - people that put our salty finger smack on your exposed flesh. Gosh how you must hate that!

Why is it me here? Simple - as Beagle Boy pointed out, I'm really the only Biblical Creationist here at TWeb with the boldness to call you clowns out every time you try to get away with irrationality and nonsense (or is it non-science? Actually, it's both!). There may be other Biblical Creationists here at Nat Sci 301 but suffice it to say that I couldn't say with absolute certainty who they are due to their 'silence'.

The simple fact of the matter is that here on TWeb Nat Sci 301 has become the playground for Atheists, Theistic Evolutionists and other anti-biblical vermin. When reading posts here I many times think that I'm at the Infidels website instead of at TWeb Nat Sci 301. Once upon a time there were a number of active Biblical Creationists but not any longer - why would they waste their time?

Hey ... maybe there's a lesson in this for me? Maybe they're wiser in knowing when to leave "the lost to lead the lost" after they've made an attempt to help? Hmmm ...

Jorge

[Jorge]

True enough, I only understand the most elementary of the principles - just enough that I can identify Jorge's stories as fairy tales.
I also know well enough not to pay attention to the teachings of bombastic blowhards - even when they're right, the teaching is tainted.

Inquiring minds want to know: how much did you
pay your tutor for help with the 'harder' words?

Also, this one is an instant classic in irrationality:
"... even when they're right, the teaching is tainted."

IOW: "even when they're right" (meaning that it's true), "the teaching is tainted" (meaning that you "know well enough not to pay attention", i.e., you do not accept that truth).

WOW!!! This is the kind of stuff you have to see to believe.

Jorge

[KingsGambit]

Why? Everything I said was true.

I agree it was harsh.

But it was true.

Unlike another poster here who is harsher than harsh and nearly everything he writes is a distortion of an outright lie.

How much abuse of the sensibilities are we supposed to take?

K54

It appeared to me he was asking a question while admitting to having only a rudimentary understanding of the field. I would find it ideal to allow people to feel free to ask basic questions without being mocked for not having a Masters in the hard sciences.

[Omniskeptical]

I think we were saying the same thing, just coming at it from different sides.



Any one reversal is not that unlikely. It's actually been observed.

Back mutation can produce phenotype reversion in Bloom syndrome somatic cells

What is unlikely is that you'd get a whole series of back mutations that exactly reversed the original mutational path.

Are you saying the cricket isn't a possible mutation back?

[rogue06]

Not that I question evolution and genetics.... but, if this is the case, shouldn't we be seeing new species being produced on a semi regular basis - maybe one every couple hundred years or so? Or does it have some sort of "end of the line for this branch" condition where there is no opportunity for further evolution.

We do new species arising especially among insects and the Plant Kingdom. But considering that the various ecological niches are pretty well occupied by organisms at this time you aren't going to see a rapid radiation of them. The fossil record reveals that such rapid radiations do take place after major extinction events or when a previously unoccupied niche becomes available (such as when animals first moved out onto land). There are of course exceptions like the spreading of the angiosperms (flowering plants) but as I noted, these are the exceptions.

[rogue06]

Yes - and we are. The London underground mosquitoes, for example. Polyploid fireweeds. And there's a species of lizard far along the way to becoming two.

Roy

And a group of orcas that are splitting into different species distinguishable by size, hunting tactics and vocalizations among some other characteristics.

[rogue06]

He does understand his version of information theory -- (paraphrased) "Information is that thing which evolution cannot increase."

K54

There is the notorious "Functional Complex Information is information that is complex and functional."

[rogue06]

And a group of orcas that are splitting into different species distinguishable by size, hunting tactics and vocalizations among some other characteristics.

And of course there is Lenski's experiments with E coli where one of the populations gained the ability to metabolize citrate which is essentially an increase in complexity (the acquisition of new information in the genome) provided by a beneficial mutation that resulted in a new species.

And before someone raises the old "but it is still a bacteria" canard please understand that bacteria represents an entire taxonomical Order (that's the ranking above/larger than Kingdom as in Animal Kingdom, Plant Kingdom...). In fact the bacteria Domain is many times larger than the entire eukaryote Domain (the grouping that contains all animals, plants and fungi). So for those who repeat this tired old fallacy, what would you expect bacteria to become? It would truly be remarkable if a bacteria evolved into anything other than another type of bacteria.