BILL NYE VS KEN HAM: TONIGHT AT 7 PM

[pocaracas]

Person 1: “Hey Statler, how was your party?”
SW: “It was great, everyone had a great time, except for Pocaracas because he could not make it.”
Person 2: “Hey Statler, how was your party?”
SW: “It was great, everyone had a great time.”

Come on, man!!!
Why me?!?!?!?!?!

Ever heard of the project to domesticate foxes in Siberia?

No I have not, those Russians…always scheming. I doubt they’re sequencing the Foxes’ genomes in order to monitor the filtering of mutations. Cool video though.

As I read about it, they just keep the foxes which are more friendly to humans and release the others into the wild.
In time, it shouldn't be difficult to sequence the genome of wild fixes and compare it to the domesticated ones.

Why?
It makes 80 generations go by much faster, thus eliminating deleterious genetic mutations chronologically faster.

You’re eliminating the ones that are selectable yes but you are compiling the others at a much faster rate; thus bringing on the advent of error catastrophe much more quickly.

Faster rate? really?

Considering that you're working your way to near-neutral mutations, then I'd have to say no.
Sometimes, what seems like deleterious is really not.
Like color blindness... not really impairing the ability to survive and breed, is it?

No it’s not, but that’s not really the issue. The issue is whether or not it is degrading the overall functionality of the genome; which it is. Undergoing this sort of entropy is not viable over a deep time model.

Stat, old boy... maybe that's how new species arise within the same genus.

There are animals which adapt to life in near darkness... and lose the ability to see.... some even lose their eyes altogether.
Apparently deleterious, right?.... but didn't affect their ability to survive and breed, so it's good.

I would not necessarily call it good, but you’re right that it’s not as deleterious as an animal that lives out in broad daylight losing its vision.

See? It's possible to have a seemingly deleterious mutation which, in fact, isn't deleterious.
It's deleterious in a given context, but not in another context. It may even be beneficial in the case of living your whole life in complete darkness, as no energy is wasted with a visual system and all the complexity it entails.

The concept of deleterious should pertain only to mutations that actually impair the ability to survive and breed.

I would disagree, a mutation that does not harm me now but could harm humans later on would still have a certain level of deleterious value to it now.

Aye... still... we are surrounded by such mutations.
Think about it.
Africans have curly hair for a purpose, it creates air pathways which help to prevent overheating of the brain.... in a hot environment.
Also, dark skin prevents melanoma.
Dark irises prevent glare in very bright scenarios.

Some humans developed straight hair, light skin and some lost all pigmentation in their irises (blue eyes)... all deleterious mutations, all could harm your chances of survival... in a sunny environment, like Africa.
But not in higher latitudes... which is where we find individuals with these deleterious mutations.
Why are these mutations allowed to persist?
Well, as far as skin pigmentation is concerned, higher latitudes mean colder environments, rendering the usage of clothes mandatory, so you no longer need pigmentation to protect from the sun's harmful rays.
Colder environment also means you're not at risk of brain overheating, in fact, you end up needing a nice flat hair that insulates your head.
etc...

Contrary to what some people would like, these mutated populations still belong to the same species that came out of Africa.

My point is... near-neutral deleterious mutations are not really deleterious, even if you compound several of them.
Some are only deleterious for life in a particular environment, but not so in another environment.

Yes, it does exist... like cancer exists...
Compile enough of these mutations?... and you may become a different species! like those cave animals I was telling you above.

That’s debatable, I am not sure that a group of people who’d lost their ability to see would be considered a new species.

I did say "compile enough of there mutations", didn't I?
Not just one.
We've seen that, in humans, it is quite common to have at least 3 mutations, but still remain in the same species.

You only die when you get an actual deleterious mutation.

Or enough near-neutral mutations in order to cause your genome to cease functioning properly.

That happens when you get the final one which is indeed deleterious.
All others allowed the individual to survive and breed... that last one is the one that fails to provide this mechanism... hence it is not "near neutral" it is downright deleterious.

Thou art forgiven.

Like I said above, these near-neutrals are only seemingly deleterious. And, if they accumulate enough to become actual deleterious, then the 80 generations rule takes over.... is the species can survive for 80 generations with that mutation...
If not, then yes... it's goodbye time.

We’re not talking about one single mutation here though; we are talking about hundreds upon hundres of copying errors that overtime can cause the entire genome to breakdown.

Indeed, sometimes the evolutionary branch ends... sometimes they just cause the emergence of a new species.

Could it be because it was purposefully constructed to be internally consistent? You ever considered that?
The problem with that starting point is the initial connection with the observable reality... the actual existence of a divine entity.

It’d be impossible to contrive an internally consistent view of reality and have any part of it being true without the entire thing being true. If any part of the Christian view of reality is true then the entire thing is true because it is so internally consistent.

So... if Jerusalem exists, then Jesus and the apostles and the miracles and the ark and Abraham existed, too?
Is that how it works?

But I digress... It is possible to contrive a consistent view of reality and have a part of it being true without the entire thing being true: Newtonian physics.

Mighty big IF you got there, don't you think?
Besides, why do you accept the claims of what those people wrote?
- The claim that they ware divinely inspired when writing...
- The claim that every pen stroke was ordained by god...
- The claim that it is infallible...

Why have faith in the contents of these writings... why accept them at face value?

I think my response above addresses this. It must be true.

Just because it's consistent?
My dear boy... The Lord of the Rings is internally consistent. At the end, the elves go to valinor, the wizards are no longer required and fade into myth, hobbits mingle with humans, orcs and trolls die out. Humans are the sole remaining intelligent species on (Middle) Earth... I look around me and that looks about right!
Does that make it true?
Why not?
Because we know it to be a work of fiction? What if we didn't have that information?
What if it had been presented as an accurate account of antiquity?

The people who follow the others will claim the same about all schemes that are not theirs...
Are they wrong?

I am actually not aware of any other religion that takes this sort of approach but yes they’d be demonstrably wrong because their views of reality are self-refuting whereas the Christian one is not.

hmm... I seem to remember a few of this site's fine muslim posters claim something of the sorts... let me search...

Here's a nice one from sleepy:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-21965.html

Another

You're asking exactly the wrong questions. Why is Islam the religion of God? Because it is the most logical. I don't know what type of answer you're looking for but I can tell you it's the wrong answer as it is not unjustified to say there is one God because God is the Most Supreme Being in the Universe and there are none like Him.

The concept of God in Islam is truly the pure essence of philosophy of God. Everything else is against the purest Philosophy of God. In Christianity, God has limits. Jesus has to eat, sleep, poop. God knows no slumber. He has no needs.

You also have Muslim Scholar... he should know about these things... after all, he IS a scholar

That is Islam; like or not it doesn't matter and it doesn't affect its validity as well because it is consistent.

Can't find any more... I'm sure there's loads more in this forum alone...