Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[whois]

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. You are claiming the same thing that they claim against my arguments and yours.

oh, okay.

God doesn't obey laws He created them. So I am not sure what you mean.

i don't know, for some reason i just don't buy the "god" bit.
the funny part is, i don't know exactly what i mean by that.
OTOH, i see design and divine inspiration in various places in regards to life.
the only thing i can do is keep an open mind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, who was on the ark? Noah, his sons, and his sons wives, correct?

Correct.

(And don't forget Mrs. Noah.)

 

[[serious]]

Correct.

(And don't forget Mrs. Noah.)

So all males on the ark were noah and the sons of noah. So all new children would be descendants of noah. Hence, noah would be the last universal male ancestor.

 

[AV1611VET]

So all males on the ark were noah and the sons of noah. So all new children would be descendants of noah. Hence, noah would be the last universal male ancestor.

Well I'm sure how that works.

After all, wouldn't the "last universal male ancestor" for the Jews be Shem?

 

[[serious]]

Well I'm sure how that works.

After all, wouldn't the "last universal male ancestor" for the Jews be Shem?

Almost certainly not. After all, there was intermarriage after Shem.

EDIT: Meaning i the Y-adam sense. There is almost certainly not an unbroken male line from all jews today back to Shem.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

The off topic commentary about Koonin has been removed. Arguments involving Dr. Koonin's one quote have also been removed.

 

[whois]

Link to credible sources stating that it has been "proven" that natural selection has "little to no effect on the vast majority of organisms"?

the work of Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta, and others, have shown both theoretically and empirically that natural selection has little or no effect on the vast majority of the genomes of most living organisms.

 

[Foxhole87]

the work of Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta, and others, have shown both theoretically and empirically that natural selection has little or no effect on the vast majority of the genomes of most living organisms.

Whereas Dawkins, et al have demonstrated that natural selection and genetics are tightly woven together.

Can you link us to the specific source which supports your claims?

 

[whois]

Can you link us to the specific source which supports your claims?

a synopsis of kimura, jukes, and kings work:
According to the neutral theory, a substantial majority of the mutations that are fixed in the course of evolution are selectively neutral so that fixation occurs via random drift. A corollary of this theory is that gene sequences evolve in an approximately clock-like manner (in support of the original molecular clock hypothesis of Zuckerkandl and Pauling) whereas episodic beneficial mutations subject to natural selection are sufficiently rare to be safely disregarded for a quantitative description of the evolutionary process.

it must be pointed out that the "nearly neutral" theory is more accurate.

it's apparent to me that genetic drift is responsible for the majority of the changes we see in evolution, not natural selection.

 

[Foxhole87]

a synopsis of kimura, jukes, and kings work:
According to the neutral theory, a substantial majority of the mutations that are fixed in the course of evolution are selectively neutral so that fixation occurs via random drift. A corollary of this theory is that gene sequences evolve in an approximately clock-like manner (in support of the original molecular clock hypothesis of Zuckerkandl and Pauling) whereas episodic beneficial mutations subject to natural selection are sufficiently rare to be safely disregarded for a quantitative description of the evolutionary process.

it must be pointed out that the "nearly neutral" theory is more accurate.

it's apparent to me that genetic drift is responsible for the majority of the changes we see in evolution, not natural selection.

The Wiki article on the neutral theory of molecular evolution seems to suggest the exact opposite of your claim that it has been proven that natural selection has "little to no effect" on the majority of organisms.

Neutral theory does not deny the occurrence of natural selection. Hughes writes: "Evolutionary biologists typically distinguish two main types of natural selection: purifying selection, which acts to eliminate deleterious mutations; and positive (Darwinian) selection, which favors advantageous mutations. Positive selection can, in turn, be further subdivided into directional selection, which tends toward fixation of an advantageous allele, and balancing selection, which maintains a polymorphism. The neutral theory of molecular evolution predicts that purifying selection is ubiquitous, but that both forms of positive selection are rare, whereas not denying the importance of positive selection in the origin of adaptations."[9] In another essay, Hughes writes: "Purifying selection is the norm in the evolution of protein coding genes. Positive selection is a relative rarity — but of great interest, precisely because it represents a departure from the norm."[10] A more general and more recent view of molecular evolution is presented by Nei.[8]

 

[whois]

ah yes, i see.
there is about 4 or 5 definitions for natural selection.

 

[USincognito]

Consol???? The true blue Consol?

Thankfully you didn't say consol's name three times. Because if you'd said consol's name three times consol would... oh no!!!!

 

[USincognito]

That statement is in complete abandonment of intuitive logic. Atheist scientists today have done a great job at shaping minds into not wondering into any other form of reasoning other than analytical, because intuitive logic breaks the biases reaped from base analysis.

It's always humorous when apologists bring a philosophy text to a scientific discussion. The icing on the cake of this paragraph was the reference to "atheist scientists".

Creationists have an intuitive mind, and deduce automatically such possibilities that even with the alleged overwhelming evidence, it's really just what one wants to perceive. If you want to see evolution, then you'll see evolution. But if you want to see creationism, you'll see God shifting the Earth, cultivating it through animals who die out and then created, fish on mountaintops and oil at sea floors from a catastrophic flood- an entire world of life hand crafted by God and moved at His will.

I'm sorry but the equality of perception/interpretation argument is laughable. For instance marine life is not found "on mountaintops", it comprises mountain tops. Limestone with crushed up remains of crinoids and brachiopods mixed in would not form during the Flood. They form in normal oceanic conditions and then move to form mountaintops via plate tectonics.

The logic of evolution is built on the premise that everything has to come about and continued on by it's own accord. The problem is, without an answer of origin or breathing force, that idea is just that- an idea. And so is evolution.

No, just no. Evolution starts with extant life on an extant planet and the source for the origin of life on earth has no effect on the theory at all.

 

[USincognito]

ah yes, i see.
there is about 4 or 5 definitions for natural selection.

There are? Could you list them for us?

 

[USincognito]

It is not that we haven't figured it out yet as much as what we do know makes it pretty much impossible by natural means. Just as spontaneous generation bit the dust, it more than likely happen to all other such models.

Who is this we of which you speak?

 

[whois]

There are? Could you list them for us?

didn't you read post 213?

speaking of which:
i was asked to provide a valid source for my claim, and i have done that.
in reprise i get a wiki article, where we have such shenanigans as this:
I'm going to edit the following sentence (from the second paragraph in the overview): "That is, these differences do not influence the fitness of either the species or the individuals who make up the species" (emphasis mine) to "That is, these differences do not influence the fitness of the individual organism."
To refer to the 'fitness of the species' is to imply that such a concept exists among species, and thus that selection at the species level exists. While my personal inclination tends to Gould's side of the argument, in favor of species selection, most biologists range from highly skeptical to skeptically agnostic with respect to species selection.

at least my source was a respectable one, one that couldn't be edited by persons unknown, for whatever reason that suited them.

 

[whois]

Who is this we of which you speak?

probably the entire scientific community.

 

[USincognito]

didn't you read post 213?

Yeah, it lists several types of natural selection. I don't see 4 or 5 different definitions for natural selection which was your assertion.

 

[USincognito]

probably the entire scientific community.

Ah, nobody you can cite and thus your claim can be rejected for lack of substantiation. Thank you.

 

[whois]

Yeah, it lists several types of natural selection. I don't see 4 or 5 different definitions for natural selection which was your assertion.

don't forget, post 213 comes from wiki, hardly a respected science source.