Evolution versus Interrelation

[rossum]

What could affect the change of freq alleles in living organisms?

The frequencies of alleles in living organisms is changed by changes in the environment.

As the environment changes, some alleles are better suited to the changed environment, while other alleles are less well suited to the changed environment. The better suited alleles increase in frequency, due to natural selection, while the less well suited alleles decrease in frequency due to natural selection.

For example, alleles to better resist Covid used to be neutral, or possibly mildly deleterious. Now they are beneficial and will be increasing in frequency. Alleles that reduce resistance to Covid will be decreasing in frequency. The appearance of Covid is a change in the environment, which is resulting in changes in allele frequency.

 

[The Pixie]

Once again, I would like to reiterate that Evolution = change of freq alleles... The topic of Evolution is change. The scope of "change" must be studied, whether the change is limited/narrow or broad/wide. Because, every explanation in science must be correct and the falsification too must be correct AND all explanations must be real.

Once again, I would reiterate that the scope of biological evolution is the entirety of life from the first living thing on this planet to the vast array of species we see today.

Now, if Evolution will limit its explanation from of life from the first living thing on this planet to the vast array of species we see today, then, Evolution must decide or conclude if the origin of life, that will affect the change of life in living organisms, are intelligently designed or not, since change will always be affected by which factor will be chosen by Evolution.

The origin of life will have determined the starting point for evolution. That is pretty obvious.

Darwin and supporters of Evolution had chosen and concluded, that the change of freq alleles never uses intelligence, and the major mechanism is natural selection, and not intelligence nor intelligence selection. Thus, Evolution must really sure to it that these topics are well explained and well tested. But Evolution is dead on these topics, but had quickly concluded natural selection. That is stupidity.

What on earth are you talking about? What topics? Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis because it is out of the scope of evolution, but modern science has plenty to say on the subject.

In addition, Evolution must sure to it that the origin of both universe and life have no effect with the change of frequency alleles that will result in the origin of new species. BUT Evolution, as claimed and concluded by its supporters, started its explanation when life had begun! Evolution had limited its scope! The same analogy of FLAT EARTH by using a limited area of flat surface of earth! That is wrong and stupidity!

This is just nonsense. We know with a high degree of certainty that the nature of the universe was the same 4 billion years ago as it is today - in part because we can look back in time and see distance galaxies as they were back then, and see the conform to the same laws.

That is all evolution needs to know, and it is so trivial evolutionists will not bother to note it ever.

As for life, I guess you mean first life. We determine what that was by extrapolating back from the present. This is no different to a detective at a crime scene. He does not have to know anything about the Big Bang to make sense of the crime. He looks at the scene as it is right now, and works back in time from there.

Again, all you are really doing here is showing how woeful your knowledge of science is.

Thus, the best analogy of EVOLUTION is FLAT EARTH, as I had shown above.

Thus, if you are supporters of Evolution, you either deluded, or fooled by supporters of Evolution or deliberately deny reality, and uphold Evolution as a religion.

It is interesting that you equate being deluded and deliberately deny reality with religion.

Amen to that.

Once again, real scientist must ask, what change the Evolution is talking about?

And real scientists have done that - change in the frequency of alleles, which leads to a change in the population of a species. Perhaps you should read up on evolution?

What could affect the change of freq alleles in living organisms?

Variation and natural selection. Again, if you could bring yourself to read a biology textbook, you might find the answer to that.

Do life and its origin have no affect in the change of freq alleles?

Yes, as just discussed.

Those are the starting questions for Evolution, before Evolution conclude. Can you answer them?

These are questions that have been answered long ago. You only think they need to be answered because you are so ignorant of biology.

 

[CrowCross]

The frequencies of alleles in living organisms is changed by changes in the environment.

As the environment changes, some alleles are better suited to the changed environment, while other alleles are less well suited to the changed environment. The better suited alleles increase in frequency, due to natural selection, while the less well suited alleles decrease in frequency due to natural selection.

What you are speaking of is what is called "horizontal" evolution and not "vertical" evolutionism...or as others have put it "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolutionism"

The release of the Kinds from Noah's Ark is an example of changing alleles (micro)...not that the alleles are gaining any new information (macro) but rather mixing of and or losing alleles. We can see this when dogs are bred.

 

[rossum]

What you are speaking of is what is called "horizontal" evolution and not "vertical" evolutionism...or as others have put it "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolutionism"

Is a change in three alleles micro- or macro-? There is an example of a species change with three changes to alleles.

There is a second example of a species change with only one mutation.

Your point fails. Small changes can result in speciation.

The release of the Kinds from Noah's Ark is an example of changing alleles (micro)...not that the alleles are gaining any new information (macro) but rather mixing of and or losing alleles. We can see this when dogs are bred.

The release of the Kinds from Noah's Ark is a myth. There is insufficient evidence of widespread flooding over the entire world within a single year.

New alleles arise through mutation, for example the Apo AI-Milano mutation, which appeared in the 18th century in Italy.

 

[CrowCross]

Is a change in three alleles micro- or macro-? There is an example of a species change with three changes to alleles

There is a second example of a species change with only one mutation.

Your point fails. Small changes can result in speciation.


The release of the Kinds from Noah's Ark is a myth. There is insufficient evidence of widespread flooding over the entire world within a single year.

New alleles arise through mutation, for example the Apo AI-Milano mutation, which appeared in the 18th century in Italy.

I don't deny speciation....the animal release from the ark shows that occurred.

As to your examples you should have presented a reference.

 

[Harry Leggs]

When the argument for ID is:

• We do not know
• Therefore ID

It is a crackpot concept.

That is not the argument. So why did humans develop feet and not wheels?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

The frequencies of alleles in living organisms is changed by changes in the environment.

As the environment changes, some alleles are better suited to the changed environment, while other alleles are less well suited to the changed environment. The better suited alleles increase in frequency, due to natural selection, while the less well suited alleles decrease in frequency due to natural selection.

For example, alleles to better resist Covid used to be neutral, or possibly mildly deleterious. Now they are beneficial and will be increasing in frequency. Alleles that reduce resistance to Covid will be decreasing in frequency. The appearance of Covid is a change in the environment, which is resulting in changes in allele frequency.

You are totally ignorant of reality.

Evolution had alreday been concluding that the change in freq alleles is non-intelligence. Now, if you let a non-intelligent worker does the job in a certain company, what will you exclusively expect (or predict), compared to a worker that uses intelligence?

You see how stupid Evolution is? The change of freq allele must be from Biological Interrelation and there is no origin of species!

I will answer the same question if you answer it wrong.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Once again, I would reiterate that the scope of biological evolution is the entirety of life from the first living thing on this planet to the vast array of species we see today.


The origin of life will have determined the starting point for evolution. That is pretty obvious.


What on earth are you talking about? What topics? Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis because it is out of the scope of evolution, but modern science has plenty to say on the subject.


This is just nonsense. We know with a high degree of certainty that the nature of the universe was the same 4 billion years ago as it is today - in part because we can look back in time and see distance galaxies as they were back then, and see the conform to the same laws.

That is all evolution needs to know, and it is so trivial evolutionists will not bother to note it ever.

As for life, I guess you mean first life. We determine what that was by extrapolating back from the present. This is no different to a detective at a crime scene. He does not have to know anything about the Big Bang to make sense of the crime. He looks at the scene as it is right now, and works back in time from there.

Again, all you are really doing here is showing how woeful your knowledge of science is.


It is interesting that you equate being deluded and deliberately deny reality with religion.

Amen to that.


And real scientists have done that - change in the frequency of alleles, which leads to a change in the population of a species. Perhaps you should read up on evolution?


Variation and natural selection. Again, if you could bring yourself to read a biology textbook, you might find the answer to that.


Yes, as just discussed.


These are questions that have been answered long ago. You only think they need to be answered because you are so ignorant of biology.

You see how stupid Evolution is?

Evolution had been claiming that Evolution starts from the beginning of life, and Evolution has no test to show that life is either intelligently designed or not, that will surely affect the change of freq allele in biological world! STUPID, right?

Evolution had dismissed the topic of intelligence (and its variant words) and did not even know what intelligence means in biology!

Again, Forensic Science FS studies both scenarios. Good science. But Evolution had quickly concluded that the change in freq alleles is only natural/non-intelligent process, thus, the stupid Evolution uses Natural Selection as one of its major mechanism, and not intelligent selection! You cannot compare Forensic Science (FS) which is better than since FS can detect two scenarios than Evolution which is stupider that conclude one scenario only, like FLAT EARTH! Oh my goodness.. your level of literacy in science and analysis technique are so low!

Oh my goodness...who taught you science?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

That is not the argument. So why did humans develop feet and not wheels?


View attachment 3583

You are right!

No mater how hard human could try, humans cannot evolve or produce wings or wheels, or additional arm...

The more, the better...

Evolution is really stupid.

Now, let us support Biological Interrelation, which is better than Evolution.
Next time, when Evolutionists argue with you, use Biological Interrelation and show them the analogy between FLAT EARTH and ROUND EARTH. They will not accept it but we can show how stupid their Evolution is...

 

[rossum]

You are totally ignorant of reality.

You, on the other hand, are projecting.

Evolution had alreday been concluding that the change in freq alleles is non-intelligence. Now, if you let a non-intelligent worker does the job in a certain company, what will you exclusively expect (or predict), compared to a worker that uses intelligence?

Water is not intelligent. Therefore Neptune, the god of the sea, must be telling all the water in the world which way to go so it can flow into the sea, where Neptune wants it to end up. No need to learn about any of that non-intelligent gravity stuff. Water needs to be intelligently told which direction to move.

You see how stupid Evolution is? The change of freq allele must be from Biological Interrelation and there is no origin of species!

Natural selection works in the same way as compound interest. The more successful you are at reproducing the more grandchildren you will have. Those grandchildren have more copies of your alleles.

 

[mikeT]

Evolution had been claiming that Evolution starts from the beginning of life, and Evolution has no test to show that life is either intelligently designed or not, that will surely affect the change of freq allele in biological world!

It will?

Why?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

You, on the other hand, are projecting.


Water is not intelligent. Therefore Neptune, the god of the sea, must be telling all the water in the world which way to go so it can flow into the sea, where Neptune wants it to end up. No need to learn about any of that non-intelligent gravity stuff. Water needs to be intelligently told which direction to move.


Natural selection works in the same way as compound interest. The more successful you are at reproducing the more grandchildren you will have. Those grandchildren have more copies of your alleles.

Let us clarify your posts and understanding in science and see if they are part of reality or not:

1. I understood the analogy between water and Neptune, good analogy. Now let us apply that in biology. Evolution claim that the change of freq alleles is non-intelligent, or water in your analogy. Probably true, but how do you test and confirm that, so that Evolution could be labeled as real scientific theory? Evolution will surely first discuss the topic of intelligence (and its variant words) and correctly define and describe intelligence with experiment, from Evolution. Great claim requires great evidence, for if not, Evolution and its supporters are stupid.

So, Evolution claim that biological cell does not use intelligence, like water in your analogy, that is why Darwin, and his supporters like you, quickly concluded Natural Selection, and not Intelligent Selection. Once again, how do you test and confirm that, so that Evolution could be labeled as real scientific theory? Evolution will surely first discuss the topic of intelligence (and its variant words) and correctly define and describe intelligence with experiment, from Evolution. Great claim requires great evidence, for if not, Evolution and its supporters are stupid.

You see how stupid Evolution is and how stupid the supporters of evolution by quickly claiming something without knowing the topic of intelligence first? Who taught them science and logical thinking?

2. Natural Selection will be correct if Evolution and its supporters could correctly discuss and show the topic of intelligence in science, and conclude or decide, BUT how do you test and confirm that, so that Evolution could be labeled as real scientific theory? Evolution will surely first discuss the topic of intelligence (and its variant words) and correctly define and describe intelligence with experiment, from Evolution. Great claim requires great evidence, for if not, Evolution and its supporters are stupid. YOU SEE how stupid Evolution is and how Darwin made you stupid?

Now, what is really intelligence or smart or controlled or intentional, etc and how will you apply that in biology, so that Evolution could quickly correctly conclude natural Selection and conclude that there is really no intelligence in biology?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

It will?

Why?

That is why EVOLUTION has the responsibility to test if it will or not will...

In Biology, science is talking about life, in Evolution, Evolution talks about life and its change, so the topic of life could alter and affect the change and origin of species, or probably not. It must be tested.

That is why EVOLUTION must not quickly conclude but test and not guess, in science.

So, based on evolution and you learned so far, does life has no connection with change of freq alleles? How do you know?

YOU SEE how Darwin had made you stupid or making you stupid?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Biological Evolution is supposedly the best theory in Biology? And no one can replace Evolution?

The Intelligent Design had replaced Evolution with Biological Interrelation, basically, it is like
Flat Earth (Evolution) versus Round Earth (Interrelation).

If you can differentiate the two correctly, then, you will know why Evolution is stupid.

IN ADDITION, TO CLARIFY:

1. ID is concern mainly in the topic of the kind or type of "change" since Darwin and supporters of Evolution had messed this difficult topic. So that Darwin and Evolutionists could continue their science explanations, they neglected the topic of intelligence and quickly concluded non-intelligence, or natural. To support their conclusion, they concluded Natural Selection, and not Intelligent Selection. By doing this, those ignorant supporters of Evolution really dismissed the topic of intelligence, concluding further that the change of frequency alleles are always non-intelligence or natural.

2. ID had discovered the actual topic of intelligence and non-intelligence, (it should be done first by Evolutionist) which means, any topic in Biology, like the topic of change, could now be categorized if the change is directed by intelligence or not. The conclusion was that the change of freq alleles is guided by intelligence, since life, is part or product of intelligence. To falsify this, critics must redefine intelligence with experiment, and fight side by side with ID.

3. Then, ID has new model to compete with Biol Evolu. The new theory is Biological Interrelation, BiTs. The differences are very simple:
a. Evolution is dead on intelligence, thus, wrong, while BiTs knows about intelligence and is correct.
b. The change is intelligently guided change, since intelligence and its variant words are part of reality.

4. Now, Biological Interrelation had refuted almost all explanations from erroneous Evolution. Thus, any topic from Evolution are based on non-intelligence change a stupid conclusion from Evolutionists.

Scientific Arguments of the New Intelligent Design , Postrado, Edgar Alberto - Amazon.com

Scientific Arguments of the New Intelligent Design - Kindle edition by Postrado, Edgar Alberto. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Scientific Arguments of the New Intelligent Design.

www.amazon.com

---

​

 

[mikeT]

That is why EVOLUTION has the responsibility to test if it will or not will...

You're avoiding the question.

You claimed intelligent design "will surely affect the change of freq allele in biological world".

Why?

 

[rossum]

Evolution claim that the change of freq alleles is non-intelligent, or water in your analogy. Probably true, but how do you test and confirm that,

By observation and experiment. For example, How to make a superweed shows how the herbicide Roundup causes an increase in the frequency of alleles for the protein that Roundup attacks. Some Palmer Amaranth plants have over 100 copies of the allele so they can survive being sprayed with Roundup.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

You're avoiding the question.

You claimed intelligent design "will surely affect the change of freq allele in biological world".

Why?

Why are you asking? Evolution should be answering and had answered that simple question of WHY before Evolution concluded Natural Selection.

Biological Interrelation claimed that it yes, then, why Evolution claimed not?

You must have answered to that question first from Evolution, before you could post that here. Why? For explanation and falsification.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

By observation and experiment. For example, How to make a superweed shows how the herbicide Roundup causes an increase in the frequency of alleles for the protein that Roundup attacks. Some Palmer Amaranth plants have over 100 copies of the allele so they can survive being sprayed with Roundup.

Evolution has no test. Evolution has a bias observation, with presupposed conclusion that there is no intelligence.

Once again, what was the test, as basis, from Darwin and Evolution when they claimed that the change of freq alleles is not guided by intelligence?

 

[rossum]

Evolution has no test.

Evidence please.

Evolution has a bias observation, with presupposed conclusion that there is no intelligence.

Evidence please.

Once again, what was the test, as basis, from Darwin and Evolution when they claimed that the change of freq alleles is not guided by intelligence?

Evidence for the existence of an intelligence at the appropriate places and times please.

Without evidence, all you have is personal opinion.

For example, where is your evidence that an intelligence added all those additions alleles to the genome of Palmer Amaranth?

Where there is evidence of intelligent intervention, as with Monsanto's development of Roundup resistant crops, then science will accept intelligence as a cause. You need to show evidence that an intelligence was present and capable of changing DNA. We have that evidence for Monsanto. You need to provide comparable evidence for your proposed intelligence.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Evidence please.


Evidence please.


Evidence for the existence of an intelligence at the appropriate places and times please.

Without evidence, all you have is personal opinion.

For example, where is your evidence that an intelligence added all those additions alleles to the genome of Palmer Amaranth?

Where there is evidence of intelligent intervention, as with Monsanto's development of Roundup resistant crops, then science will accept intelligence as a cause. You need to show evidence that an intelligence was present and capable of changing DNA. We have that evidence for Monsanto. You need to provide comparable evidence for your proposed intelligence.

Oh my goodness...

You knew very well that I am late comer in science and the new model that will replace and had replaced Biological Evolution is Biological Interrelation, BiTs, was formulated 10 years ago and still in the process of refinement, but Evolution had been around for 170 years and you could not even show me one test or experiment showing that the change of freq alleles is not intelligently guided?

Why are you asking me? Of course, the new model could present that very simple test and evidence if the change is really intelligently guided (intellen) or not (naturen)..

You are supporting a stupid theory and you could NOT even give me one evidence for the change of freq alleles that was not guided by intelligence. Oh my goodness!!!