Answering any questions on Evolution

[Guy1]

If Christianity doesn't contaminate science then it blesses science. Neutrality is irrelevant & hypothetical. If Christianity doesn't hurt science then it helps science. That would mean that we should all become Christians before becoming scientists.

Since walruses mating doesn't hurt Hitler then it helps him. The holocaust is completely irrelevant. Walrus mating doesn't hurt Nazis, it helps them. That would mean we should kill all the walruses if we want to stop World War 2.

Are you seeing the problem here?

 

[JoeyArnold]

Since walruses mating doesn't hurt Hitler....

Do you believe in separation of church & state?

 

[Trogool]

Do you believe in separation of church & state?

I wonder at the possibilities.

Kids in Skyrim these days.. - YouTube

 

[JoeyArnold]

How about christianity and science are not related. Christianity is faith. Science is not faith. Stop trying to link the two together.

When scientists first started dating dinosaurs bones they did so based off religion. There were religions out there that held their views about how old the universe is. Humanity is filtered through their soul. Everything that we do is biased & modified through what we believe about everything. Scientists can't come to something from a stance of neutrality because we are plagued & cursed with blinded eyes. Religion has always been apart of humanity & those who deny it are the very ones who are trying to flee it to begin with.

 

[Guy1]

Do you believe in separation of church & state?

Indeed I do, though I fail to see the relevance.

 

[KittyPryde]

Why should I trust an indoctrinating textbook?

If I was stranded on a desserted island, and only could have one Book, I would choose The Holy Bible.

 

[Zaius137]

First I'd like to point out that I do actually work, and have a social life so I'm not on this website constantly and I'm not here to come running to your beck and call. I do not take lightly to demands, show some respect.

Sorry I do not mean to overwhelm you. I have a life too. But you bit off a pretty good chunk when you ask “anyone who wishes to know more about Evolution “
Simply “OK people, ask away.”

1) No molecular mechanism - I'm presuming you actually know what evolution is? It's about more capable individuals surviving and being able to pass on their genetic information to offspring. All the molecular mechanisms involved in reproduction, mitosis, meiosis etc...

I talk to a lot of professionals in microbiology and related disciplines and have come to the conclusion that the majority of professionals don’t know what evolution is. I believe it is a chameleon changing its strips to try and explain what it cannot. You for instance cannot separate a molecular mechanism form genetic drift.

2) Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. And I answered this question earlier to you, it is probable. The amount of time, the number of chances that molecules get to react. Clay catalysts, deep sea vents, thunderstorms, volcanoes.

Actually evolutionists spouted many unscientific speculations on the origin of life but recently gave up the claim because it is untenable. I might suggest you actually look at the proposed number of possible chemical reactions that could have taken place since the Big Bang; the number is in the neighborhood of about 10 to the 50th. All possible probabilities of life lay well beyond 10 to the 200th; if you find that it is reasonable for such reactions to have taken place… as the song goes…(You Believe In Magic).

3) Fossils show whole organisms, 1 species, a stable single species. There aren't half species lying around. There is variation within a species but only to the degree in which they can still interbreed.

This fact has always plagued evolutionists…. I see you have accepted the empirical evidence.

4) Not enough mutations to show Homo Pan divergence? That's because there actually isn't that much difference between the Homo and Pan genera. The DNA sequencing is evidence, concrete evidence that we are incredibly similar species. I have no idea how you can refute this.

No, the differences in the DNA have been observed and there are not enough intergenerational mutations to account for a divergence. As I have demonstrated to my friend (sfs). Similarity in the DNA is explained by a possible null hypothesis of common design.

I shall have to answer some of these other points after, I acutally have to go out at the moment. If any other individuals who respect evidence would like to contribute to what I am saying please do.

I will suspend particular replies to “your evidence” in great anticipation.

 

[verysincere]

Since walruses mating doesn't hurt Hitler then it helps him.

This thread has officially flown right off the rails.


I'm done.


.

 

[Non sequitur]

This thread has officially flown right off the rails.


I'm done.


.

This happens quite often when JoeyArnold starts by asking oddball one-sentence questions, typically not related.

Watch.

You might see one, in response to this, soon.

 

[sfs]

I talk to a lot of professionals in microbiology and related disciplines and have come to the conclusion that the majority of professionals don’t know what evolution is.

You have come to many conclusions that are at odds with reality.

I believe it is a chameleon changing its strips to try and explain what it cannot. You for instance cannot separate a molecular mechanism form genetic drift.

Genetic drift is a mechanism of molecular evolution.

Actually evolutionists spouted many unscientific speculations on the origin of life but recently gave up the claim because it is untenable. I might suggest you actually look at the proposed number of possible chemical reactions that could have taken place since the Big Bang; the number is in the neighborhood of about 10 to the 50th. All possible probabilities of life lay well beyond 10 to the 200th; if you find that it is reasonable for such reactions to have taken place… as the song goes…(You Believe In Magic).

Scientists (not "evolutionists" -- those who study the origin of life are seldom evolutionary biologists) have offered and continue so offer scientific speculations on the origin of life; they have not given up the claim because it is untenable. Since no one can actually calculate all possible probabilities of life starting spontaneously, anyone who claims to have done so can immediately be dismissed as being completely ignorant of the subject.

3) Fossils show whole organisms, 1 species, a stable single species. There aren't half species lying around. There is variation within a species but only to the degree in which they can still interbreed.

This fact has always plagued evolutionists…. I see you have accepted the empirical evidence.

The fact that there are no "half species" has never troubled evolutionary biologists in the slightest. We do observe, however, a complete range of relatedness among species, from a single, uniform population, to freely interbreeding subspecies, to arguably distinct species that still interbreed often, to clearly distinct species that still interbreed regularly, to species that interbreed rarely. This is all exactly as evolution would predict, and nothing like anything creationism would predict.

No, the differences in the DNA have been observed and there are not enough intergenerational mutations to account for a divergence. As I have demonstrated to my friend (sfs). Similarity in the DNA is explained by a possible null hypothesis of common design.

No, all you've demonstrated in your exchanges with me is an inability to carry out basic calculations in genetics. The observed divergence is entirely consistent with the measured mutation rate, as I demonstrated to you months ago. (If I don't reply to every post you make on the subject, it's not because your arguments have suddenly become correct; it's because they're wrong for the same reasons as the last time I corrected them.)

 

[NailsII]

If Christianity doesn't contaminate science then it blesses science. Neutrality is irrelevant & hypothetical. If Christianity doesn't hurt science then it helps science. That would mean that we should all become Christians before becoming scientists.

Since walruses mating doesn't hurt Hitler then it helps him. The holocaust is completely irrelevant. Walrus mating doesn't hurt Nazis, it helps them. That would mean we should kill all the walruses if we want to stop World War 2.

Are you seeing the problem here?

This thread has officially flown right off the rails.


I'm done.
.

Given the first quote from JA, the second (from Guy1) is entirely justified in my opinion.
Such ridiculous claims need to be highlighted.

 

[Zaius137]

To (sfs)...

You continually make comments that I was inaccurate in the numbers I used to calculate a Pan Homo divergence in generations. I am of no illusion that this could be a possibility but you really need to point it out instead of your one liner denials.

I went back to the paper I cited (Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans)
and went threw one of there calculations. I did the following:


t= number of generations 250k (Generation =20 years) (5x10^6/20)
(from 5 million years)
k= as variable
Ne= effective size of population ~10^4
(u)=mutation rate 2.5x10^-8 or 175 new mutations/generation (175/7x10^9)…
Please note the units for mutation rate.

I got a (k) value (or average autosomal pseudogene difference) of 1.26%; but at this point I will claim a higher value for (k) but only about 3%.... This seems to line up with the findings of that older paper (.6% to 2.6%) and new research.

My 3% is form…

... on closer inspection we differ by 1.2% in the functional genes that code for proteins. And we also differ by about 3% in the non-coding DNA regions, so called "junk DNA" - although this phrase seems to be losing meaning as some of these regions regulate genes and possess as yet unknown functions. So overall we can say that chimp and human DNA is about 96% identical - which is still very close. If you were to lay both genomes out side by side you would see that base for base they are 96% similar.

Comparing Chimp DNA and Human DNA


Work it out for yourself… I will do the values again using your 60 mutations per generation and 3% divergence but you won’t like the result. Here it is anyway…

t= number of generations since divergence (Generation =20 years)
k= percentage of sequence divergence Estimated at 3%
Ne= effective size of population (10^4)
(u)=mutation rate (9x10^-9) (60/7x10^9)

From Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans

t= .5(k/u-4Ne)

in generations that is 1.65 million or 33 million years since the human chimp divergence…

 

[Zaius137]

If Christianity doesn't contaminate science then it blesses science. Neutrality is irrelevant & hypothetical. If Christianity doesn't hurt science then it helps science. That would mean that we should all become Christians before becoming scientists.

Quick note to JoeyArnold…

Don’t let these atheists brow beat you… you can claim the intellectual high ground because the Bible is trustworthy and true. They have nothing in the way of reasonable scientific evidence. There are many participants in this forum who are intellectuals and professionals (I never claimed to be in that company) but when they deny God and his Word they are fools and easily exposed.

 

[SkyWriting]

Since no one can actually calculate all possible probabilities of life starting spontaneously, anyone who claims to have done so can immediately be dismissed as being completely ignorant of the subject.

Given the laws of thermodynamics, the challenge is to show that development of non-living matter into life is even possible. Or at least is due to some identifiable law of nature. So far, nothing. Put another way, can we add water to anything not alive anywhere and get life by adding some warm sunshine? No luck so far. It's a hard lesson to explain that simple forms of life will become more complex over time with not one obvious example to show for it. And it really should be obvious if it's the "force of everything".

 

[verysincere]

Given the first quote from JA, the second (from Guy1) is entirely justified in my opinion.
Such ridiculous claims need to be highlighted.

Yes, I definitely see your point.

I was simply saying that when one has to drop down to that level to try to educate the "un-educatable"........ well ...... ....it takes a lot more patience than I've ever had.

So for those who can tolerate and address the need for "Common Sense 101" remedial tutorials, power to you. I salute you. Yours is a difficult but noble job.



.

 

[verysincere]

Given the laws of thermodynamics, the challenge is to show that development of non-living matter into life is even possible.

Oh, my. Here we go again with the classic "Laws of Thermodynamics deny abiogenesis/evolution/you-name-it" argument.

When Ken Ham & Co. list this doozey on his Answers in Genesis "Arguments which we must stop using" page, you KNOW it has to be particularly ridiculous. (After all, Ken Ham rarely meets a silly argument which he can't use for propaganda purposes.)


.

 

[SkyWriting]

If Christianity doesn't contaminate science then it blesses science. Neutrality is irrelevant & hypothetical. If Christianity doesn't hurt science then it helps science. That would mean that we should all become Christians before becoming scientists.

If peanut butter doesn't contaminate science, then it blesses science, I say.
The same with adultery.

 

[NailsII]

Given the laws of thermodynamics, the challenge is to show that development of non-living matter into life is even possible. Or at least is due to some identifiable law of nature. So far, nothing. Put another way, can we add water to anything not alive anywhere and get life by adding some warm sunshine? No luck so far. It's a hard lesson to explain that simple forms of life will become more complex over time with not one obvious example to show for it. And it really should be obvious if it's the "force of everything".

Given the laws of thermodynamics, how can hydrogen burn in oxygen and make water?
It is increasing in complexity, gaining more information.
It just can't happen.

If peanut butter doesn't contaminate science, then it blesses science, I say.
The same with adultery.

How does peanut butter bless adultery?

 

[SkyWriting]

When Ken Ham & Co. list this doozey on his Answers in Genesis "Arguments w....

Your not reading carefully. My argument is not the same.

 

[verysincere]

Your not reading carefully. My argument is not the same.

Once again your reading comprehension skills have failed you.

Here was my statement:

"Here we go again with the classic "Laws of Thermodynamics deny abiogenesis/evolution/you-name-it" argument."

Even if you HAD succeeded in coming up with a NEW kind of abuse of the Laws of Thermodynamics---something I find very unlikely---it would have been covered by the universal catch-all "you-name-it". But as it happened, you simply restated the same old lame misunderstanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics applied to abiogenesis!

What ALL of those bogus claims have in common is a fundamental lack of understanding that the L.O.T. are about "heat engines" --- not information systems or "design complexity' or any other pointless tangent. I suppose one can forgive the scientifically-illiterate for their confusion over the words "entropy" and "disorder." As with so many scientific terms, many people assume their general definitions/connotations and fail to understand that they refer to the distribution and "usefulness" [i.e., availability to do work] of energy, not order/disorder of things in some general sense.

So, yes, you have yet again walked right into a popular fallacy which even many "creation science" advocates have abandoned and begged their allies to avoid!

But for those who are Bible-believing Christians, this silly "war" on abiogenesis defies the Bible itself. Genesis 2:7 says that "God made the man from the dust of the ground." Biological life from non-living ingredients is abiogenesis. It couldn't be any more clear. The Bible states that living things come, not from some sort of magical "life-matter" as many used to believe, but from the same inorganic materials as the earth itself. The simple "non-living" chemical elements of the earth are the ingredients of life. (The Bible says we come from dust, and to dust we shall return. We and ALL living things.) So the Bible has no beef with Science as to abiogenesis!

So let's put a halt to this silly "war on science" which so many of our Christian brethren insist on waging! Science is methodologically naturalistic by definition. It is NOT theology! (And quit confusing the methodological naturalism of science with the philosophical naturalism of various well-known atheists that many of you obsess over!)

Skywriting, do you TRULY believe that these ridiculous, ill-informed attacks on established science (and cherished scriptures) advance the Kingdom of God in any way? There are real wrongs and heresies in this world that deserve your time and energy. Why do you and your allies insist on attacking the answers which God has provided to our questions within His Creation? Do you honestly believe that any non-believer is impressed by your denial of God's scientific evidence and God's scriptures? Do you believe that this contrived "war" on science somehow increases your credibility and the credibility of the Bible itself? Why not use the harmonies of God's Bible and God's Science (i.e. Creation) to build bridges of communication and mutual respect with non-Christians?


If you truly believe that I'm in error, I invite you to correct and educate me off-list. If you send a message to me, my T.A. will send you an invitation to the Bible.and.Science.Forum where such an exchange can take place among Bible-believing, Christ-followers rather than in an open forum for the general public.



.