Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 40 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 400

Thread: Genetic Entropy

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    That is NOT evidence. There is no physical evidence of any kind that supports a global flood. That is a FACT! We know for a FACT that people were not living to the years that the Bible claims. Clink the link that I provided and you will see that it's false.



    Craig evolution is a FACT! I don't need to prove it. It already has been proven. You are simply living in fantasy land to make such statements. No offense, but there is no debate about evolution. It was proven along time ago. The facts are there for you to discover if you will look for it.

    I know we're not discussing intelligent design. But in the link you provided John C. Standford proposed that absurdity over verifiable facts of a common ancestor. Anyone who ignores verifiable facts in favor of something with no evidence is suspect.
    Newsflash......high mutation rates undermines evolution. There is nothing fantasy about that fact.

    Unfortunately for your argument, there IS a debate about evolution - and it has been raging for about 150 years.... Whatever side you take, you cannot deny that there is a debate......unless YOU are living in fantasy land. .... no offence.

    OK, well it all boils down to the mutation rate. If it exceeds 1, then we're going extinct. If it is less than 1, then there is hope. I hope, for our sakes, that you can prove that the mutation rate is alot lower than Sanford says it is......

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    Newsflash......high mutation rates undermines evolution. There is nothing fantasy about that fact.

    Unfortunately for your argument, there IS a debate about evolution - and it has been raging for about 150 years.... Whatever side you take, you cannot deny that there is a debate......unless YOU are living in fantasy land. .... no offence.

    OK, well it all boils down to the mutation rate. If it exceeds 1, then we're going extinct. If it is less than 1, then there is hope. I hope, for our sakes, that you can prove that the mutation rate is alot lower than Sanford says it is......
    Newsflash....Only among creationist is there a debate. Science already knows and has demonstrated evolution as fact. There is no debate. We have evidence that it has occurred and is still occurring 24/7. Your argument has no merit. Neither does Sanfords. He has denied something that is demonstrably true. That makes his opinions very suspect.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    Hi Richard,

    I look forward to a response based on mutation rates. The simple fact is that as long as the mutation rate exceeds 1 mutation per person per generation, then evolution is completely impossible.

    I hope you can prove that the mutation rate is alot lower....... I really do........ Because a high mutation rate doesn't just affect our philosophy - it spells our extinction....in the near future. So good luck.......
    Hey there Craig,

    John Sanford claims that the stats are about 3 mutations per cell generation. He cites Michael Lynch, but Lynch says the number is actually 0.06 in humans. I'll research more to find the source of the inconsistency. But the bottom line is that Stanford appears to be grossly ignorant of basic science. He suggests that God micromanaged Adam's genome - manually fixing every mutation! That's just nuts. He also seems grossly ignorant of how natural selection maintains the genome. The proof is trivial. Just put some fish in a dark cave and you will see their eyes degenerate because there is no nothing to select the good eyes over the bad.

    And there is a big problem with his "exponential decay" graph. He rigged it by using the absurdly young "age of Jesus" (33) as the final data point!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	genealogy-decay.jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	45.6 KB 
ID:	894

    That's perverse! First, he should have used the average life expectancy in the first century, not the age that someone (Jesus) was executed! Jesus did not die a natural death. It is absurd to use his death age. And more to the point - we have a lot more data that Sanford simply ignored. The graph should have been extended for another two thousand years up t present time. This would PROVE that his thesis is bullshit because the graph would have been FLAT for most of the last two thousand years with a rather sharp increase represent the extension of life expectancy in the last two centuries. It would not fit an exponential decline at all if extended over the full range of our knowledge. It is therefore deceptive, and apparently deliberately so.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,145
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Newsflash....Only among creationist is there a debate. Science already knows and has demonstrated evolution as fact. There is no debate. We have evidence that it has occurred and is still occurring 24/7. Your argument has no merit. Neither does Sanfords. He has denied something that is demonstrably true. That makes his opinions very suspect.
    Evolution is a fact no less obvious than gravity. Without natural selection, the genome would quickly degrade just like Stanford says. That's why his assertion that natural selection cannot keep the genome working is so bloody absurd. We can see the effectiveness of natural selection very quickly by looking at what happens when it is removed, as when for example animals live in dark caves. Random mutations quickly destroy their eyes. Those random mutations are happening all the time in all animals. Why don't animals living in the light lose their eyes? BECAUSE OF NATURAL SELECTION! Duh!

    How can anyone, let alone a supposed "genetic scientist", fail to understand something as simple as this?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    676
    This comment indicates a fundamental failure to understand the basic concept of evolution. Mutations are simply explorations of genetic evolutionary phase space - the space of every possible genetic pattern. Patterns have variable survivability. Evolution is as inevitable as water flowing in a canyon. The water explores every nook and cranny. Watch these two videos and you should be able to understand (the explanation of evolutionary phase space begins at about 5 minutes in):
    Well, here is my simply logic.

    If the mutation rate is higher than 1 mutation per person per generation, then all of a parents offspring will inherit that mutation.

    Natural selection can remove the negative mutations but only by preventing the offspring from reproducing. If ALL the offspring inherit mutations, then natural selection has nothing to choose between, and mutations will accumulate with each passing generation, until DNA collapse occurs. Oh dear. How sad !

    Regardless of your rhetoric, the simple logic of common sense prevails. The ONLY way you can challenge my argument is by showing that the mutation rate is alot lower. If you cannot do that I win the argument, but the human race looses it's existence.....

    I am going to research all this much more carefully too.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    Newsflash......high mutation rates undermines evolution. There is nothing fantasy about that fact.
    Craig,

    Could you please cite a real scientist who states that as a fact in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? That would help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    Unfortunately for your argument, there IS a debate about evolution - and it has been raging for about 150 years.... Whatever side you take, you cannot deny that there is a debate......unless YOU are living in fantasy land. .... no offence.
    It's not the "debate" that has been raging, but rather those who know little or nothing of science and yet declare that evolution is false because it contradicts their religious dogmas. And that's ironic - even the Pope has accepted the evidence for evolution. And there are many devout Christians who cannot deny the evidence such as Dr. Francis Collins, former head of the human genome project. And even the most fundamentalist Bible believers such as Rich Deem of godandscience.org cannot deny evolution per se. All he can do is invent an absurd and inconsistent unscientific distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution. No one with any authentic knowledge of science can deny evolution as such and the supposed distinction between macro and micro evolution is simply absurd and unfounded.

    So Craig, where do you stand on evolution? It is impossible to simply deny it altogether unless you live in a "Fantasy land" (to use your terminology).

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    OK, well it all boils down to the mutation rate. If it exceeds 1, then we're going extinct. If it is less than 1, then there is hope. I hope, for our sakes, that you can prove that the mutation rate is alot lower than Sanford says it is......
    First, the mutation rate is listed by Michael Lynch (cited by Sanford) as 0.06 per cell generation in this paper. So there is no problem or somebody got their numbers mixed up.

    Second, Stanford's argument has been proven FALSE by the fact that we have not been degrading according to his exponential graph for over two thousand years, and the recent history totally contradicts his thesis and makes it mathematically impossible.

    Third, on top of all this there is the gross absurdity of his argument in general which is based on total ignorance of natural selection and the fact that we can see it maintaining the integrity of the genome experimentally.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Evolution is a fact no less obvious than gravity. Without natural selection, the genome would quickly degrade just like Stanford says. That's why his assertion that natural selection cannot keep the genome working is so bloody absurd. We can see the effectiveness of natural selection very quickly by looking at what happens when it is removed, as when for example animals live in dark caves. Random mutations quickly destroy their eyes. Those random mutations are happening all the time in all animals. Why don't animals living in the light lose their eyes? BECAUSE OF NATURAL SELECTION! Duh!

    How can anyone, let alone a supposed "genetic scientist", fail to understand something as simple as this?
    That is a good question. I have yet to see a "creation scientist" who didn't have to skew the facts in order to prove their dogma. Why do they knowingly mislead people is the real question? I just don't get it.

    Here is one example of a salamander losing its eyes by living in a cave. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....part-i-beasts/


    Here is 8 more examples of evolution in action. http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-ex...ion-in-action/
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    Well, here is my simply logic.

    If the mutation rate is higher than 1 mutation per person per generation, then all of a parents offspring will inherit that mutation.

    Natural selection can remove the negative mutations but only by preventing the offspring from reproducing. If ALL the offspring inherit mutations, then natural selection has nothing to choose between, and mutations will accumulate with each passing generation, until DNA collapse occurs. Oh dear. How sad !

    Regardless of your rhetoric, the simple logic of common sense prevails. The ONLY way you can challenge my argument is by showing that the mutation rate is alot lower. If you cannot do that I win the argument, but the human race looses it's existence.....

    I am going to research all this much more carefully too.
    You have deceived yourself with the "simple logic of common sense". You forgot that the mutation happened in only ONE of the parents. Therefore, the children will have a fifty/fifty chance of getting it. So if a parent with a bad mutation has four children, natural selection will select the two without the mutation. Your argument fails. Your "simple logic" is based on a very simple failure to understand how genetics works.

    Now if you want to assert that you were talking only of simple organisms that reproduce asexually, then you have a different problem. Such organisms have extremely fast reproductive cycles and we could easily have seen the degradation in the lab if it were really occurring. But we don't see it. Indeed, we see just the opposite. We see evolution in action as those simple organisms quickly adapt to changes in the environment.

    Thus, the "simple logic of common sense" defeats you argument and proves evolution true again.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    676
    Ok chaps, well I shall carefully review your arguments and respond. I shall take a look and do some research to see what the true mutation rate is. I shall respond soon.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig.Paardekooper View Post
    Ok chaps, well I shall carefully review your arguments and respond. I shall take a look and do some research to see what the true mutation rate is. I shall respond soon.
    Sounds good.

    Can you post your data for the kings in a format I can put in Excel? I'd like to check his graph.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •