-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Another poor response to ERV evidence for common ancestry by a creationist.
- Thread starter MolecularGenetics
- Start date
Zaius137
Real science and faith are compatible.
My theory is just as scientific as evolution
Since you intellectuals cant stand any criticism of Evolution I am submitting my own theory that explains the evolution of Evil; namely Evilution. Evilution and Evolution are similar in scale but varied in subject. There are major differences in there power of explanation that makes Evilution undeniably true. Lets explore the evidence of both. Evolution can not explain the origin of life (it has given up the idea) but Evilution can empirically explain the origin of evil. Evolution is deliberately vague on the facts; Evilution is deliberately concise.
It breaks down like this:
Major forces of Evolution:
Major forces of Evilution:
As to the origin of evil it is clearly (Man).
Darwin is going to hell for his theory, my reward is in heaven.
Since you intellectuals cant stand any criticism of Evolution I am submitting my own theory that explains the evolution of Evil; namely Evilution. Evilution and Evolution are similar in scale but varied in subject. There are major differences in there power of explanation that makes Evilution undeniably true. Lets explore the evidence of both. Evolution can not explain the origin of life (it has given up the idea) but Evilution can empirically explain the origin of evil. Evolution is deliberately vague on the facts; Evilution is deliberately concise.
It breaks down like this:
Major forces of Evolution:
- Natural Selection
- symbiosis
- Mutation
- Horizontal gene transfer
- Genetic drift
Major forces of Evilution:
- Natural rejection of the truth
- symbiotic relations of the unmarried
- Mutation of the Bible
- Horizontal hate transfer
- Moral drift
As to the origin of evil it is clearly (Man).
Darwin is going to hell for his theory, my reward is in heaven.
Upvote
0
I thought who gets to heaven and who gets to hell were decided by God...although a creationist passing this kind of unevidenced judgement certainly is par for the course. And at Xmas time too. Nicely done Z, nicely done.
Upvote
0
CabVet
Question everything
- Dec 7, 2011
- 11,738
- 176
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I thought who gets to heaven and who gets to hell were decided by God...although a creationist passing this kind of unevidenced judgement certainly is par for the course. And at Xmas time too. Nicely done Z, nicely done.
He keeps forgetting portions of the Bible, like this one (KJV because it is on the language spoken in Heaven):
Luke 6:37. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.
But hey, that doesn't sound all that important, as someone else said, it may be a "small insignificant" part of it. Funny how invariably when it comes to judging, religious people are among the quicker on the trigger.
Upvote
0
Zaius137
Real science and faith are compatible.
This is what only 60 mutations per generation means.
For our species to be 6000 years old the number of mutations shows our species is very young. If there are 60 mutations passed on per generation and ~300 generations (for 6000 years) that would mean a total of 18,000 mutations (300g x 60m/g) or .00058% of our genome. The robustness of the human genome could tolerate this number.
On the other hand if our species is 5 million years old that would be 250 thousand generations times 60 mutations or 15 million mutations or about 5% of our genome. So if all were fixed and none were deleterious that would make us about ~10% (~5%x2) different from chimps. But since about 1 in 1000 mutations can be beneficial (conservative estimate) that would change the calculation to:
15 million/1000 = 15000 mutations or (.0005% of the human genome)
If all were fixed in our genome then we would be about .001% different from chimps (.0005%x2 =.001%).
This means that we only differ from our nearest relative by about .001% or we are like chimps in the order of 99.999%.
That is why the observed mutation rate pushes back the common ancestor an additional 7 million years (very conservative by the way).
Observed mutation rates, deleterious mutations U paradox and information theory all say we can not come from a chimp/human common ancestor.
Come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
For our species to be 6000 years old the number of mutations shows our species is very young. If there are 60 mutations passed on per generation and ~300 generations (for 6000 years) that would mean a total of 18,000 mutations (300g x 60m/g) or .00058% of our genome. The robustness of the human genome could tolerate this number.
On the other hand if our species is 5 million years old that would be 250 thousand generations times 60 mutations or 15 million mutations or about 5% of our genome. So if all were fixed and none were deleterious that would make us about ~10% (~5%x2) different from chimps. But since about 1 in 1000 mutations can be beneficial (conservative estimate) that would change the calculation to:
15 million/1000 = 15000 mutations or (.0005% of the human genome)
If all were fixed in our genome then we would be about .001% different from chimps (.0005%x2 =.001%).
This means that we only differ from our nearest relative by about .001% or we are like chimps in the order of 99.999%.
That is why the observed mutation rate pushes back the common ancestor an additional 7 million years (very conservative by the way).
Observed mutation rates, deleterious mutations U paradox and information theory all say we can not come from a chimp/human common ancestor.
Come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Upvote
0
Except that it can't explain why humans and chimps share 200,000 orthologous ERV's in a scientific manner. Common ancestery does explain it in a scientific manner.
Upvote
0
sfs
Senior Member
- Jun 30, 2003
- 10,857
- 7,881
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Humans differ from each other at 0.1% of their bases; we can tolerate a great deal more than 0.00058% mutations. (Oh, and your numbers are a factor of two off, if you mean 60 mutations per person: each person has 12 billion base pairs of genome, not 6 billion, since we're diploid.)
0.5% -- your multiplication is wonky. Multiply that by two, to account for mutations in the lineage leading to chimpanzees, and you'll find the predicted genetic divergence from chimpanzees (except for the other factor of two that you're still missing, and a largish correction for ancestral population size that goes in the opposite direction). It also happens to be more or less what we find as the actual genetic divergence.
This is a meaningless calculation. The probability of fixation is much larger for positively selected mutations that it is for neutral ones.
Upvote
0
Zaius137
Real science and faith are compatible.
(sfs)
First you are wrong about the diploid base pair count…
“Humans differ from each other at 0.1% of their bases; we can tolerate a great deal more than 0.00058% mutations. (Oh, and your numbers are a factor of two off, if you mean 60 mutations per person: each person has 12 billion base pairs of genome, not 6 billion, since we're diploid.)”
“In humans, with our 6 billion base pairs in each diploid cell, that would amount to about 120,000 mistakes every time a cell divides!”
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409
About the robustness that is what I stated…. Now to complete my points…
Reading the Bible dispels disbelief.
Your replies fall short of the evidence.
Human populations that are not under intense stress tend to follow an exponential growth curve (the European plague being intense stress). This fact is just common sense since all types of wild populations can be predicted by exponential growth curves. You claim soft selection (another form of group selection) can ease the “U” paradox; I believe that a population under soft selection will tend toward exponential growth. The evolution tale states man’s ancestors were concentrated in small populations over millions of years. I say this seems inconsistent with your soft selection explanation.
In conclusion of this point you (or any other evolutionist) can not explain the “U” paradox. By the most friendly calculation of B=2e^U/2 the birth rate of our ancestors had to have exceeded 16 offspring for five million years (ridiculous). The human fertility rate world wide today does not reach 8 births.
Fixation of beneficial mutations also depends on Haldane. Haldane showed that only about 1,700 beneficial mutations could have been fixed in our species since the supposed chimp human divergence. This would mean that the great majority of mutations were selected out and most likely not neutral (contrary to your continued statements of neutral mutations being in the majority). I have always found it hard to believe that we only differ from chimps by about 1,700 beneficial mutations but there it is in the calculations.
In conclusion not you (or any other evolutionist) can explain the “U” paradox. By the most friendly calculation of B=2e^U/2 the birth rate of our ancestors had to have exceeded 16 offspring for five million years (ridiculous). That is with the most recent findings of evolution science “U=4.2”
. By the way this figure will only climb when we find out our DNA is not as closely related to chimps as the evolution dogma states.
As I have stated all along that new evidence continually contradicts the evolution dogma. True to this principal research has found that on average only 60 mutations per human couple have been passed along to the next generation (peer reviewed and still authoritative). By the same evolution calculations this pushes back the chimp human divergence an additional 7 million years (total 12 million years); because the mutation rate is not high enough to make an ape into a man in 5 million years.
Evolution is wrong and the Christian has no reason to accept any of its propositions.
You need a good long ride on the Bible bus…
First you are wrong about the diploid base pair count…
“Humans differ from each other at 0.1% of their bases; we can tolerate a great deal more than 0.00058% mutations. (Oh, and your numbers are a factor of two off, if you mean 60 mutations per person: each person has 12 billion base pairs of genome, not 6 billion, since we're diploid.)”
“In humans, with our 6 billion base pairs in each diploid cell, that would amount to about 120,000 mistakes every time a cell divides!”
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409
About the robustness that is what I stated…. Now to complete my points…
Reading the Bible dispels disbelief.
Your replies fall short of the evidence.
Human populations that are not under intense stress tend to follow an exponential growth curve (the European plague being intense stress). This fact is just common sense since all types of wild populations can be predicted by exponential growth curves. You claim soft selection (another form of group selection) can ease the “U” paradox; I believe that a population under soft selection will tend toward exponential growth. The evolution tale states man’s ancestors were concentrated in small populations over millions of years. I say this seems inconsistent with your soft selection explanation.
In conclusion of this point you (or any other evolutionist) can not explain the “U” paradox. By the most friendly calculation of B=2e^U/2 the birth rate of our ancestors had to have exceeded 16 offspring for five million years (ridiculous). The human fertility rate world wide today does not reach 8 births.
Fixation of beneficial mutations also depends on Haldane. Haldane showed that only about 1,700 beneficial mutations could have been fixed in our species since the supposed chimp human divergence. This would mean that the great majority of mutations were selected out and most likely not neutral (contrary to your continued statements of neutral mutations being in the majority). I have always found it hard to believe that we only differ from chimps by about 1,700 beneficial mutations but there it is in the calculations.
In conclusion not you (or any other evolutionist) can explain the “U” paradox. By the most friendly calculation of B=2e^U/2 the birth rate of our ancestors had to have exceeded 16 offspring for five million years (ridiculous). That is with the most recent findings of evolution science “U=4.2”
. By the way this figure will only climb when we find out our DNA is not as closely related to chimps as the evolution dogma states.As I have stated all along that new evidence continually contradicts the evolution dogma. True to this principal research has found that on average only 60 mutations per human couple have been passed along to the next generation (peer reviewed and still authoritative). By the same evolution calculations this pushes back the chimp human divergence an additional 7 million years (total 12 million years); because the mutation rate is not high enough to make an ape into a man in 5 million years.
Evolution is wrong and the Christian has no reason to accept any of its propositions.
You need a good long ride on the Bible bus…
Upvote
0
CabVet
Question everything
- Dec 7, 2011
- 11,738
- 176
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Amazing that these two sentences appear like this, one after the other.
We have already gave you numerous solutions for this U paradox. You are the one that don't accept any. I have many deleterious mutations myself, yet I am still alive. I am allergic to a bunch of stuff, have scoliosis, kinda slow if you ask me, but yet I am still alive. The numbers that you give are for a female giving birth to a perfect human free of deleterious mutations, do you know any of these walking around?
Human fertility today is relevant to this how? Fertility was much, much higher back in historical times. Have you ever read the Bible and see how much kids people had back then? Your own Adam is supposed to have had 55 children.
A single mutation in a regulatory gene can change an entire biochemical pathway.
The most recent findings from evolutionary biology indicate that U is somewhere between 1 and 5, you are just picking the one that serves your purposes.
As I have mentioned before, if you push back the human/chimp divergence by that much your U paradox is gone because even your high U drops by more than half, but of course, you want both to be true (a high U and a low mutation rate), or to put it in a batter way, you want whatever supports your argument to be true.
As everyone reading this thread has come to understand, you are simply cherry picking data to mislead whoever is not familiar with the questions at hand. You still have not responded to my question about your "calculations" on a 1%/generation human growth rate (which we know was 30% or higher recently).
Upvote
0
Zaius137
Real science and faith are compatible.
CabVet...
Human fertility today is relevant to this how? Fertility was much, much higher back in historical times. Have you ever read the Bible and see how much kids people had back then? Your own Adam is supposed to have had 55 children.
Good you accept the Bible as the only solution to “U” paradox. The bible is the only book that has always been upheld under very strong criticism. Not one thing the Bible tells us is untrustworthy.
As I have mentioned before, if you push back the human/chimp divergence by that much your U paradox is gone because even your high U drops by more than half, but of course, you want both to be true (a high U and a low mutation rate), or to put it in a batter way, you want whatever supports your argument to be true.
You have no idea of the consequences of pushing back the human/chimp divergence really has. All calculations about the age of our genome would be wrong. Calculated ages of ERVs would be wrong. Chimp human common ancestry would be nonsense. Opps it is nonsense.
As for your other criticism of what I posted you have not showed any substantial point. If you wish to continue the disagreement you must present a particular instance of my misunderstanding in that regard. It is possible I just made a particular mistake. I would be grateful if you could help me out in that respect but please one issue at a time.
Human fertility today is relevant to this how? Fertility was much, much higher back in historical times. Have you ever read the Bible and see how much kids people had back then? Your own Adam is supposed to have had 55 children.
Good you accept the Bible as the only solution to “U” paradox. The bible is the only book that has always been upheld under very strong criticism. Not one thing the Bible tells us is untrustworthy.
As I have mentioned before, if you push back the human/chimp divergence by that much your U paradox is gone because even your high U drops by more than half, but of course, you want both to be true (a high U and a low mutation rate), or to put it in a batter way, you want whatever supports your argument to be true.
You have no idea of the consequences of pushing back the human/chimp divergence really has. All calculations about the age of our genome would be wrong. Calculated ages of ERVs would be wrong. Chimp human common ancestry would be nonsense. Opps it is nonsense.
As for your other criticism of what I posted you have not showed any substantial point. If you wish to continue the disagreement you must present a particular instance of my misunderstanding in that regard. It is possible I just made a particular mistake. I would be grateful if you could help me out in that respect but please one issue at a time.
Upvote
0
CabVet
Question everything
- Dec 7, 2011
- 11,738
- 176
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
The Bible does not offer solutions to anything, it just shows you that family sizes were much larger in the past, which they were, and you are assuming a present fertility rate, which is erroneous.
You want to discuss a particular point? Sure, how about your claim that the human population grew at a constant 1% per generation since Adam and Eve?
Upvote
0
Zaius137
Real science and faith are compatible.
You want to discuss a particular point? Sure, how about your claim that the human population grew at a constant 1% per generation since Adam and Eve?
Actually you are leaving out the flood. At that time human kind was reduced to 8 individuals about 4 thousand years ago.
Actually you are leaving out the flood. At that time human kind was reduced to 8 individuals about 4 thousand years ago.
Upvote
0
Zaius137
Real science and faith are compatible.
Originally Posted by Zaius137 http://www.christianforums.com/t7567545-post59300280/#post59300280
I think we should look at the graph and blot out the light grey lines. You have 16 generations listed with a single individual at he top. Calculating the number of years assuming 20 years per generation gives 320 years total. If you take this out to 300 generations with exponential population growth you can come up with about 7 billion individuals with a single woman ancestor. Hey that is about the population of the earth now…. The math works equally well without the evolution dogma.
Actually I quoted the wrong figure of 300 generations. That number of 300 generations came from the mitochondrial eve. My calculation was actually done from the time of the flood. Reposted below…
My numbers…
T=4304 years (Noah’s ark)
r= .004784 (delta pop)
This type of calculation is used in determining growth rates in populations. The human race is no different. The matter only gets complicated when evolutionists try and apply there circular reasoning to humans.
I think we should look at the graph and blot out the light grey lines. You have 16 generations listed with a single individual at he top. Calculating the number of years assuming 20 years per generation gives 320 years total. If you take this out to 300 generations with exponential population growth you can come up with about 7 billion individuals with a single woman ancestor. Hey that is about the population of the earth now…. The math works equally well without the evolution dogma.
Actually I quoted the wrong figure of 300 generations. That number of 300 generations came from the mitochondrial eve. My calculation was actually done from the time of the flood. Reposted below…
My numbers…
T=4304 years (Noah’s ark)
r= .004784 (delta pop)
This type of calculation is used in determining growth rates in populations. The human race is no different. The matter only gets complicated when evolutionists try and apply there circular reasoning to humans.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
