“Descent with modification through natural selection” is faith based.

[rossum]

Both malaria and sickle cell are detrimental.

You did not read my post. Sickle cell (HbS) is advantageous in malarial areas. It is disadvantageous in non-malarial areas where its increased resistance to malaria is irrelevant. HbC is a different mutation. It also confers resistance to malaria but without the highly detrimental side-effects of HbS. The paper I referenced looked at the effects of natural selection on these two mutations. In short, HbC is replacing HbS in the population because HbC is fitter in that environment.

The paper was a scientific observation of natural selection in action, something your sources claimed did not exist. You sources were wrong, as I have been telling you.

 

[Nouveau]

This can be easily settled. Since the Darwinist claim that D+M-thru-NS is evident in nature today, and since Darwinist claim to be science-driven, a science model using terms found in nature explaining this process should not be such a chore. We have such models explaining mundane things. Such as concrete, paint, electrical circuits, ammunition, ink, paper, etc. Your 'science base' worldview is primarily tied to a science free mooring. Do you have anything, a science model using terms found in nature describing the evolution of X into Y? Otherwise you have greater faith than the pope. Because my faith has always been based on logic and reason, I can sincerely conclude that I do not have enough faith to be a Darwinist.

But D+M-thru-NS is the model, and I just explained it for you. What part did you not understand?

And here we have it. A science free testimonial attempting to be passed off as science. Your explanation carries as much science as the Genesis account. It is all faith-based.

Why do you call it science-free? What part of it was faith-based? You're not making much sense here.

 

[Towerwatchman]

You did not read my post. Sickle cell (HbS) is advantageous in malarial areas. It is disadvantageous in non-malarial areas where its increased resistance to malaria is irrelevant. HbC is a different mutation. It also confers resistance to malaria but without the highly detrimental side-effects of HbS. The paper I referenced looked at the effects of natural selection on these two mutations. In short, HbC is replacing HbS in the population because HbC is fitter in that environment.

The paper was a scientific observation of natural selection in action, something your sources claimed did not exist. You sources were wrong, as I have been telling you.

This does not support neo-Darwinism, there is no upward evolution, no increase in complexity, or an improvement in function that would make these individuals the ‘candidate’ for selection. All you have is a defect, which causes HbC Dx, Sickle Cell Dx, and its resistance to malaria.
Again this is not NS in action, . For example, Sickle Cell Anemia does not impact the reproduction ability of the patient but is detrimental to the patient, and does shorten their life expectancy.
Here is the difference, you believe sickle cell disease is beneficial. It is as beneficial as malaria or cancer. All diseases are bad. Similar to arguing that hemophilia is good because it drastically reduces the risk of forming blood clots, which brings about stokes, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, heart attacks etc.

Also, Sickle cell is not advantageous in malarial areas. If you have any understanding of the disease, you would know that person with Sickle cell will suffer multiple flair ups yearly. And note, dehydration is the most common contributor to flair ups. And where is a person more susceptible to dehydration? Hot and humid environments where malaria is found.

After so many years of discussing this with you, I don't understand why you keep posting this nonsense.

 

[Towerwatchman]

But D+M-thru-NS is the model, and I just explained it for you. What part did you not understand?

You present it as a scientific model but fail to explain how it operates using terms found in nature.

Why do you call it science-free? What part of it was faith-based? You're not making much sense here.

Let's try this again.
Note the following science models explaining I cell disease using terms found in nature.

I-cell disease (mucolipidosis II) is caused by a mutation in the GNPTAB gene. I-cell disease (OMIM 252500) is an autosomal recessive neurodegenerative disorder, characterized by a marked intracellular deficiency of a number of lysosomal hydrolases and by a significant elevation of these enzymes in plasma. It is caused by a deficiency of uridine-diphosphate-N-acetylglucosamine 1-phosphotransferase, the enzyme that phosphorylates mannose residues of glycoproteins to allow their delivery to lysosomes. The gene maps to chromosome 12q23.3, although there has been conflicting assignment to 4q21–q23.

Inclusion-cell (I-cell) disease, also referred to as mucolipidosis II (ML II), is part of the lysosomal storage disease family and results from a defective phosphotransferase (an enzyme of the Golgi apparatus). This enzyme transfers phosphate to mannose residues on specific proteins. Mannose 6 phosphate serves as a marker for them to be targeted to lysosomes within the cell. Without this marker, the proteins are instead excreted outside the cell—the default pathway for proteins moving through the Golgi apparatus. Lysosomes cannot function without these proteins, which function as catabolic enzymes for the normal breakdown of substances (e.g. oligosaccharides, lipids, and glycosaminoglycans)[3] in various tissues throughout the body (i.e. fibroblasts). As a result, a buildup of these substances occurs within lysosomes because they cannot be degraded, resulting in the characteristic I-cells, or "inclusion cells". These cells can be identified under the microscope. In addition, the defective lysosomal enzymes normally found only within lysosomes are instead found in high concentrations in the blood.

Now note the following science free testimonial explaining I cell disease.

I-cell disease (mucolipidosis II) is a rare inherited metabolic disorder characterized by coarse facial features, skeletal abnormalities, and mental retardation. The symptoms of I-cell disease are similar to but more severe than those of Hurler syndrome.

When asked for a scientific model [using terms found in nature] explaining D+M=NS I get the latter never the former.

 

[Nouveau]

You present it as a scientific model but fail to explain how it operates using terms found in nature.

That's a lie. I just gave you an explanation and you refused to identify any of my terms as not being found in nature.

Let's try this again.

Okay, here again is my explanation. Maybe this time you can identify which terms you are objecting to:

Descent means that organisms replicate. Modification means that through sexual reproduction and mutations, the offspring are not identical to their parents. Natural selection refers to the fact that where there is competition for resources, not all offspring will be equally successful at reproducing and passing their genes on to the next generation.

 

[rossum]

This does not support neo-Darwinism, there is no upward evolution, no increase in complexity, or an improvement in function that would make these individuals the ‘candidate’ for selection.

There is no requirement for "upward" evolution. Cave fish have evolved to lose their eyes because eyes are useless in a dark cave. Your sources' understanding of evolution is faulty here.

Again this is not NS in action, . For example, Sickle Cell Anemia does not impact the reproduction ability of the patient but is detrimental to the patient, and does shorten their life expectancy.

Malaria kills a lot of children. Those with Sickle Cell are more likely to survive childhood malaria and grow old enough to reproduce, thus passing on the mutation. Agreed their average lifespan is shorter, but it is longer than those who die aged 5 from malaria. On balance it is a beneficial mutation in malarial areas.

 

[Temujin]

This does not support neo-Darwinism, there is no upward evolution, no increase in complexity, or an improvement in function that would make these individuals the ‘candidate’ for selection. All you have is a defect, which causes HbC Dx, Sickle Cell Dx, and its resistance to malaria.
Again this is not NS in action, . For example, Sickle Cell Anemia does not impact the reproduction ability of the patient but is detrimental to the patient, and does shorten their life expectancy.
Here is the difference, you believe sickle cell disease is beneficial. It is as beneficial as malaria or cancer. All diseases are bad. Similar to arguing that hemophilia is good because it drastically reduces the risk of forming blood clots, which brings about stokes, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, heart attacks etc.

Also, Sickle cell is not advantageous in malarial areas. If you have any understanding of the disease, you would know that person with Sickle cell will suffer multiple flair ups yearly. And note, dehydration is the most common contributor to flair ups. And where is a person more susceptible to dehydration? Hot and humid environments where malaria is found.

After so many years of discussing this with you, I don't understand why you keep posting this nonsense.

There is nothing "upward" or benign about evolution. It is just a natural phenomenon involving the replication of inherited characteristics. It has no more moral sense than a tornado or a volcanic eruption. There is a species of octopus where the first act of the new-born is to devour their mother. The life cycle of parasitic wasps, indeed most parasites, is horrifyingly unpleasant. Yet it works to ensure that the inherited characteristics continue to be passed on. Sickle cell works to suppress malarial symptoms, so it persists.

 

[Towerwatchman]

That's a lie. I just gave you an explanation and you refused to identify any of my terms as not being found in nature.


Okay, here again is my explanation. Maybe this time you can identify which terms you are objecting to:

Descent means that organisms replicate. Modification means that through sexual reproduction and mutations, the offspring are not identical to their parents. Natural selection refers to the fact that where there is competition for resources, not all offspring will be equally successful at reproducing and passing their genes on to the next generation.

Let's analyze

• Descent means that organisms replicate. ["organisms" alone are not found in nature. Specific organisms are such as cat, dog, tree, bird act.
• Modification means that through sexual reproduction and mutations ['mutations' are not found in nature = specific mutations are.
• I-cell disease (mucolipidosis II) is caused by a mutation in the GNPTAB gene. I-cell disease (OMIM 252500) is an autosomal recessive neurodegenerative disorder, characterized by a marked intracellular deficiency of a number of lysosomal hydrolases and by a significant elevation of these enzymes in plasma. It is caused by a deficiency of uridine-diphosphate-N-acetylglucosamine 1-phosphotransferase, the enzyme that phosphorylates mannose residues of glycoproteins to allow their delivery to lysosomes. The gene maps to chromosome 12q23.3, although there has been conflicting assignment to 4q21–q23.
• the offspring ['offspring' not found in nature, bear cub, joey, chihuahua pup are.
• are not identical to their parents ["parents" not found in nature, a walrus bull is. ]

What you wrote was a science free testimonial. Why? Because terms found in nature are absent from it. You did not write a science model.

 

[Towerwatchman]

There is no requirement for "upward" evolution. Cave fish have evolved to lose their eyes because eyes are useless in a dark cave. Your sources' understanding of evolution is faulty here.

Your post.
Natural selection is dependent on some resource constraint being present. That dependency does not apply to either "descent" or "with modification".

Resource constraints do not trigger mutations. They select between the mutations that exist independently. You have a misunderstanding of how the mechanisms of evolution work.

This is correct. Mutations create new variants. Natural selection weeds out the less effective variants, leaving only the more effective variants to pass on their genes. Natural selection reduces variation. Mutations increase variation. The tension between the two processes results in evolution.

Question? How does loosing one's eyesight compensate for some resource constraint, and be considered the more effective variant to pass on?

Malaria kills a lot of children. Those with Sickle Cell are more likely to survive childhood malaria and grow old enough to reproduce, thus passing on the mutation. Agreed their average lifespan is shorter, but it is longer than those who die aged 5 from malaria. On balance it is a beneficial mutation in malarial areas.

If you believe being born with Sickle Cell is an advantage in tropical climates, I cannot help you. I will place this argument of yours in the 'flat earth' file.

 

[Nouveau]

Let's analyze

"organisms" alone are not found in nature. Specific organisms are such as cat, dog, tree, bird act.
'mutations' are not found in nature = specific mutations are.
'offspring' not found in nature, bear cub, joey, chihuahua pup are.
"parents" not found in nature, a walrus bull is.

What you wrote was a science free testimonial. Why? Because terms found in nature are absent from it. You did not write a science model.

You're being silly. General terms are perfectly scientific and very common in science.

If cats and dogs are organisms and are also found in nature, then obviously organisms are found in nature.
If specific mutations are mutations and are also found in nature, then obviously mutations are found in nature.
If bears and cubs are offspring and are found in nature, then obviously offspring are found in nature.
If a walrus bull is a parent and is found in nature, then obviously parents are found in nature.

Please stop with this patently absurd nonsense, or at least provide a scientific source backing up your ridiculous claim that general terms are not allowed in science.

 

[Towerwatchman]

There is nothing "upward" or benign about evolution. It is just a natural phenomenon involving the replication of inherited characteristics. It has no more moral sense than a tornado or a volcanic eruption. There is a species of octopus where the first act of the new-born is to devour their mother. The life cycle of parasitic wasps, indeed most parasites, is horrifyingly unpleasant. Yet it works to ensure that the inherited characteristics continue to be passed on. Sickle cell works to suppress malarial symptoms, so it persists.

Again if you believe being born with Sickle Cell is advantageous, I can't argue against this. It carries as much logic as a flat earth.
I live in the tropics and work in health care. I have never come across a Sickler who is glad he was born with this.
BTW what inherited characteristics Sickle Cell Disease ensures will continue to be passed on?

 

[Towerwatchman]

You're being silly. General terms are perfectly scientific and very common in science.

If cats and dogs are organisms and are also found in nature, then obviously organisms are found in nature.
If specific mutations are mutations and are also found in nature, then obviously mutations are found in nature.
If bears and cubs are offspring and are found in nature, then obviously offspring are found in nature.
If a walrus bull is a parent and is found in nature, then obviously parents are found in nature.

Please stop with this patently absurd nonsense, or at least provide a scientific source backing up your ridiculous claim that general terms are not allowed in science.

Wrong. Scientific models use specific terms found in nature when describing a process. I have given you multiple examples, and if I had the time or desire post thousands of examples. This is common through all the sciences. General terms are allowed in science, they are not allowed in scientific models.

 

[Nouveau]

General terms are allowed in science, they are not allowed in scientific models.

Either provide a legitimate source to back up this preposterous claim or deal with the model you were given.

Here's a reference on scientific modelling. Show me where it says that general terms are not allowed.

Scientific modelling - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[rossum]

Question? How does loosing one's eyesight compensate for some resource constraint, and be considered the more effective variant to pass on?

By not having to expend energy or resources growing eyes in a dark cave with no light then more energy and resources are available for reproduction. With more energy and resources available for reproduction, eyeless cave fish can out-breed their eyed cousins. An obvious reproductive advantage.

If you believe being born with Sickle Cell is an advantage in tropical climates, I cannot help you.

If you believe that dying of malaria at age five with no descendants is more reproductively successful than dying at age 35 having had three children then I cannot help you.

 

[Temujin]

Again if you believe being born with Sickle Cell is advantageous, I can't argue against this. It carries as much logic as a flat earth.
I live in the tropics and work in health care. I have never come across a Sickler who is glad he was born with this.
BTW what inherited characteristics Sickle Cell Disease ensures will continue to be passed on?

Sickle cell trait describes a condition in which a person has one abnormal allele of the hemoglobin beta gene (is heterozygous), but does not display the severe symptoms of sickle cell disease that occur in a person who has two copies of that allele (is homozygous). Those who are heterozygous for the sickle cell allele produce both normal and abnormal hemoglobin

Sickle cell disease is a blood disorder wherein there is a single amino acid substitution in the hemoglobin protein of the red blood cells, which causes these cells to assume a sickle shape, especially when under low oxygen tension. Sickling and sickle cell disease also confer some resistance to malaria parasitization of red blood cells, so that individuals with sickle-cell trait (heterozygotes) have a selective advantage in environments where malaria is present.

More simply, heterozygous individuals have some resistance to malaria and low incidence of Sickle Cell Disease. This is an advantageous position which promotes heterozygotes in the population. A large number of heterozygous individuals will result in consequent homozygous individuals who exhibit full-blown Sickle disease but nevertheless typically survive to reproduce, unlike children who die of malaria.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Again if you believe being born with Sickle Cell is advantageous, I can't argue against this. It carries as much logic as a flat earth.
I live in the tropics and work in health care. I have never come across a Sickler who is glad he was born with this.
BTW what inherited characteristics Sickle Cell Disease ensures will continue to be passed on?

You conflate the sickle cell trait, with its one negative consequence.
Sickle Cell anemia only happens to .01% of all carriers of Sickle Cell trait.
100% of people with Sickle Cell trait, are protected against malaria.
But .01% of them get sickle cell anemia.
Its a beneficial trade off.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Your sources are lying to you again. There is a large amount of confirmation of natural selection. The fact that you have ignored the evidence does not mean that it does not exist. For example, did your source refer you to Modiano (2001)? That is just one example of natural selection, showing the HbC mutation is superior to the HbS mutation, and has replaced it in parts of West Africa.

Why do you believe sources that lie to you?

Why do your sources like to lie?

Why didn't wicked Buddha tell you idols are of the Devil?

Satan is the Father of your false religions.

Natural selection is a dime store label abused by people like yourself not grounded in science.

When will you repent?

Go ahead and tell us why your kult has never run tests on your monkey deities.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Either provide a legitimate source to back up this preposterous claim or deal with the model you were given.

Here's a reference on scientific modelling. Show me where it says that general terms are not allowed.

Scientific modelling - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

First sentence.

Scientific modelling is a scientific activity, the aim of which is to make a particular part or feature of the world easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize, or simulate by referencing it to existing and usually commonly accepted knowledge.

How would you best accomplish the above when explaining D+M =NS? Using terms found in nature or general and ambiguous terms?

When it comes to height what betters serves? Using tall or measurements in feet/ inches/ cm
When it comes to volume what better serves? Using big or volume in cubic feet]
When it comes to distance what better serves? Using far or distance in feet, meters, miles, or kilometers.
When it comes to time what better serves? "Over a large amount of time" or time measured in minutes, hours, days, years.
When it comes to temperature what is better? "Hot, very hot, cold, very cold or measured in * F, *C
When it comes to weight what better serves? "Heavy, very heavy, light" or measured in lb or kg
When it comes to microorganisms what better serves? Bacteria, germs, virus or MRSA, ECOLI, COVID19

After 160+years Darwinists should have the foundation of their worldview D+M=NS explained as a scientific model using terms in nature. It is equivalent to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ to Christians. Just as Christianity rises and falls on the Resurrection, Darwinism rises and falls on D+M=NS.

 

[Nouveau]

First sentence.

Scientific modelling is a scientific activity, the aim of which is to make a particular part or feature of the world easier to understand, define, quantify, visualize, or simulate by referencing it to existing and usually commonly accepted knowledge.

How would you best accomplish the above when explaining D+M =NS? Using terms found in nature or general and ambiguous terms?

When it comes to height what betters serves? Using tall or measurements in feet/ inches/ cm
When it comes to volume what better serves? Using big or volume in cubic feet]
When it comes to distance what better serves? Using far or distance in feet, meters, miles, or kilometers.
When it comes to time what better serves? "Over a large amount of time" or time measured in minutes, hours, days, years.
When it comes to temperature what is better? "Hot, very hot, cold, very cold or measured in * F, *C
When it comes to weight what better serves? "Heavy, very heavy, light" or measured in lb or kg
When it comes to microorganisms what better serves? Bacteria, germs, virus or MRSA, ECOLI, COVID19

After 160+years Darwinists should have the foundation of their worldview D+M=NS explained as a scientific model using terms in nature. It is equivalent to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ to Christians. Just as Christianity rises and falls on the Resurrection, Darwinism rises and falls on D+M=NS.

Stop stalling and evading. General terms are not ambiguous terms. First you complained that my terms were not found in nature. Then you admitted they were found in nature but wrongly claimed that general terms are not allowed in scientific modelling. Now that you've failed to support that bizarre claim you're back to blabbering about them not being found in nature again. D+M-thru-NS is the model. It is perfectly clear and simple, and all of the components are terms found in nature.

 

[Towerwatchman]

By not having to expend energy or resources growing eyes in a dark cave with no light then more energy and resources are available for reproduction. With more energy and resources available for reproduction, eyeless cave fish can out-breed their eyed cousins. An obvious reproductive advantage.

Really? When I look at a picture of a blind fish, there is no hollow cavity where the eye should be. There is tissue present in that location. Obviously, the fish spent energy and resources growing that tissue. And how would you know that any energy saved by X will be used for reproduction? It can easily be used for fighting, wandering aimlessly, etc. No one would know. You are inserting unsubstantiated hypotheticals to support your idea. The danger becomes imagination trumps reason.

If you believe that dying of malaria at age five with no descendants is more reproductively successful than dying at age 35 having had three children then I cannot help you.

Malaria is most common in the African region which accounts for 93% of infections and 94% of deaths. In 2018 that would be 212M infected and 381K dead or a 0.18% death rate. This region also accounts for 70% of the world's children with SCA, with approx 310K births per year. The SCA childhood survival rate in Africa is 10% for children without access to treatment, and 50% with access to treatment. Of the remainder, 10% will be dead by 23 and the life expectance for the remaining males is 38, and female is 42.
So allow me to do the math for you. Without access to healthcare, which is the majority of the African region, 10 out of 100 will live to see their 12th birthday, of those ten, nine will live to see their 23rd birthday, who will then begin die off, not surpassing 38 -42. With access to healthcare which the majority cannot afford to pay for [remember there is no free healthcare] 50 out of 100 will live to see their 12th birthday, of those fifty, forty-five will then begin to die off, not surpassing 38-42. The life expectancy in Sub-Saharan Africa is 62 years.

The difference between you and me is that you believe sickle cell disease is beneficial. It is as beneficial as malaria or cancer. All diseases are bad. Similar to arguing that hemophilia is good because it drastically reduces the risk of forming blood clots, which bring about stokes, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, heart attacks, etc

And this is not evidence of NS. At the most you have a mutation that brings about a terrible disease, that helps with another.