Science leads materialist atheist to reject atheism

[covid-19v1]

This is utterly false.

...For those who don't understand DNA and genes.

 

[Yttrium]

I didn't say human form is the goal. You are making a strawman argument. But if you work backwards through your Evolution Theory, you would immediately see the amount of simultaneous lucky mutations that needed to happen you would see 3 billion years would not be enough, unless Someone made it happen deliberately and intelligently.

Since you can work backwards through evolution theory so well, it might help if you point out a single specific case that you think requires simultaneous lucky mutations. Because I'm not seeing any. But it's a big field, I may be overlooking something.

 

[covid-19v1]

I wonder where, exactly, this idea came from.

Yup. You would expect at least an explanation why it's false.

 

[covid-19v1]

It also isn't passed on genetically. If it's a trait that's passed on to descendants and spreads around the population, it's genetic, and it's evolution.

Having a change in the color of your skin or eyes is not evolution.

 

[Yttrium]

Having a change in the color of your skin or eyes is not evolution.

Kinda depends on what causes the change. If your skin color changes because you get a tan, sure, that's not evolution. If your eye gets banged up enough to change color, also not evolution. If you're talking about a widespread change in a population that's passed on to descendants, then all the biologists on Earth disagree with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All of my quotes are from atheist scientists aware that "they exist" (no matter what the cosmological constant says about that being more an act of God than random chance.)

And they are out of context. That makes them as valid as quoting the Bible out of context to disprove God. They are worthless and you have to know this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Having a change in the color of your skin or eyes is not evolution.

Yes, it is . When you make claims like this you demonstrate that you do not understand what evolution is:

From about as basic of a source of evolution as one can find. The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on evolution says:

"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1]["

Guess what the having a change in the color of the skin or color of eyes of a population entails?

 

[covid-19v1]

Since you can work backwards through evolution theory so well, it might help if you point out a single specific case that you think requires simultaneous lucky mutations. Because I'm not seeing any. But it's a big field, I may be overlooking something.

Okay, I'll guide you to something easy enough for you to understand...
1) Determine how many possible unique DNA combinations in a human genome

2) Think of how many times a year you think a mutation happens on an organism.

3) Divide the figure you get from step #1 by the figure you get in step #2. Now you get the minimum number of years required to get from having zero life on earth to coming up with a human being. Now you know 3 billion years, though a big number at quick glance, would not have been enough to get us to where we are now.

The very start of life alone as the theory implies would be a very big wait for forever. You are immediately faced with the need for multiple miracles.

 

[covid-19v1]

Yes, it is . When you make claims like this you demonstrate that you do not understand what evolution is:

From about as basic of a source of evolution as one can find. The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on evolution says:

"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1]["

Guess what the having a change in the color of the skin or color of eyes of a population entails?

So, your definition of your Evolution now agrees that we have been humans all along since our start? Congratulations for learning the truth!

 

[Bradskii]

​

So while it is true I do know about evolution...

I'll make a note to pm you if I have any questions about it.

 

[Estrid]

Xx

 

[Yttrium]

Okay, I'll guide you to something easy enough for you to understand...

1) Determine how many possible unique DNA combinations in a human genome

In a single human genome, there is one DNA combination. If you're talking about something else, well, I'm sure you can provide the number, since you're so well-versed on the subject.

2) Think of how many times a year you think a mutation happens on an organism.

What are you even talking about. The mutations we're concerned about happen during reproduction. That's not a yearly thing, that's a reproduction event thing. Reproduction rates vary wildly between species.

3) Divide the figure you get from step #1 by the figure you get in step #2. Now you get the minimum number of years required to get from having zero life on earth to coming up with a human being. Now you know 3 billion years, though a big number at quick glance, would not have been enough to get us to where we are now.

We were talking about simultaneous lucky mutations. Spreading things out over three billion years is hardly simultaneous. So your entire reply has nothing to do with what I asked.

The very start of life alone as the theory implies would be a very big wait for forever. You are immediately faced with the need for multiple miracles.

The theory says or implies absolutely nothing about the start of life. Evolution involves populations of living organisms.

 

[Estrid]

Yup. You would expect at least an explanation why it's false.

Why what is false?

 

[Estrid]

In a single human genome, there is one DNA combination. If you're talking about something else, well, I'm sure you can provide the number, since you're so well-versed on the subject.



What are you even talking about. The mutations we're concerned about happen during reproduction. That's not a yearly thing, that's a reproduction event thing. Reproduction rates vary wildly between species.



We were talking about simultaneous lucky mutations. Spreading things out over three billion years is hardly simultaneous. So your entire reply has nothing to do with what I asked.



The theory says or implies absolutely nothing about the start of life. Evolution involves a populations of living organisms.

Sheesh intro to remedial middle school biology.

 

[NxNW]

Okay, I'll guide you to something easy enough for you to understand...
1) Determine how many possible unique DNA combinations in a human genome

2) Think of how many times a year you think a mutation happens on an organism.

3) Divide the figure you get from step #1 by the figure you get in step #2. Now you get the minimum number of years required to get from having zero life on earth to coming up with a human being.

What an utterly absurd statement.

 

[BobRyan]

And they are out of context.

No they aren't - they are merely "inconvenient" for those who suggest they should not "exist".

You point to no actual detail for "out of context" -- were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

 

[BobRyan]

Since you can work backwards through evolution theory so well, it might help if you point out a single specific case that you think requires simultaneous lucky mutations. Because I'm not seeing any. But it's a big field, I may be overlooking something.

Wild saltation ideas abound as "needed steps" in that punctuated evolution story. Consider the eye of the squid. No step wise evidence exists at all for it.

https://www.popsci.com/article/science/how-humans-and-squid-evolved-have-same-eyes/

 

[Yttrium]

Wild saltation ideas abound as "needed steps" in that punctuated evolution story. Consider the eye of the squid. No step wise evidence exists at all for it.

https://www.popsci.com/article/science/how-humans-and-squid-evolved-have-same-eyes/

I wouldn't say that no evidence exists. We certainly don't have a complete picture. Fossilization is rare in the first place, and eye fossilization is extremely rare. Lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen, and it certainly doesn't mean that simultaneous lucky mutations needed to happen, especially since we can hypothesize step-wise paths. I'm only too happy to agree that getting a functioning eye with interdependent parts through simultaneous lucky mutations would be absurdly unlikely.

 

[covid-19v1]

What an utterly absurd statement.

Afraid to see how the Evolution Theory fails miserably under mathematical probability test?

It actually gets worse when you factor in the law that keeps an ecosystem going. Don't forget that the animal life group is interdependent with the plant life group to cycle carbon dioxide and oxygen back and forth.

This means the multiple simultaneous lucky precision mutations on the animal side would have needed a complementary activities on the plants side to keep the balance of life or everything goes back to square one.

Also, all these multiple lucky accidents of mutations would have needed a very controlled environment where those precious initial spark of lives don't get exposed to extreme heat of the summer or the freezing cold temperatures of the winter.

 

[loveofourlord]

Afraid to see how the Evolution Theory fails miserably under mathematical probability test?

It actually gets worse when you factor in the law that keeps an ecosystem going. Don't forget that the animal life group is interdependent with the plant life group to cycle carbon dioxide and oxygen back and forth.

This means the multiple simultaneous lucky precision mutations on the animal side would have needed a complementary activities on the plants side to keep the balance of life or everything goes back to square one.

Also, all these multiple lucky accidents of mutations would have needed a very controlled environment where those precious initial spark of lives don't get exposed to extreme heat of the summer or the freezing cold temperatures of the winter.

None of that is how evolution works, just look at the Italian wall lizard to show how animals evolve to eat new food sources. It's not like suddenly plant A goes from toxic to edible, it's a progress.

Best examples are snakes that can eat salamanders that are extremely deadly. It's not like the salamander got this deadly poison that instantly kills everything but the snake. It got something deadly that could harm most animals, but the snake had a natural resistance, as the snakes resistance grew, so did the toxicity of the salamanders over time.

It's not the snake or the salamander trying to be more toxic or more resistant. It's that those salamanders that were more toxic, were better able to escape the snake, and the snakes that had mutations that mad them better able to survive the toxin, were better able to eat them and so on. Everything is evolving at all times, and within every population you will get a spectrum, of those more toxi, and those less toxic then the average. The mutations that are less get weeded out, while those that are more toxic on average are more likely to survive.