So what does this tell you? there is a God or there isn't? which one is it?
Upvote
0
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.
So what does this tell you? there is a God or there isn't? which one is it?Actually the newer number is about 130 new mutations per individual an that includes the non protein coding segments stay up on the new findings please.
No No No no new information has ever been observed to be added spontaneously by point mutations that is a fact. Many if not all of these point mutations turn out to be deleterious increasing the genome loading and the calculated (U) value.
Oh, true!Well, his only determining factor for what is a plant is if they have cell walls. The first cells, of course, weren't that complex and were a simple fatty, permeable lipid chain.
Using his own ill-informed understanding of taxonomy is his "2 Kingdom System" to follow it to its logical conclusion, it still can be said that "animals" (those organisms without cell walls) still came before "plants"(organisms with cell walls).
So what does this tell you? there is a God or there isn't? which one is it?
No No No no new information has ever been observed to be added spontaneously by point mutations that is a fact.
Hi,Hi,
I'm an atheist
Alan Boyle is the author of a news article, while I said I was an author of "the paper". Papers are not news articles, and news articles are not papers. The paper I am an author of is the one described in the news article. Therefore I understand what is in the scientific paper, which is what's relevant here.I must apologize Mr. Boyle I did not read in the parenthesis behind your name
By Alan Boyle(alias sfs) Science editor
msnbc.com
I have no idea what your paragraph means. The Nachman and Crowell paper estimates the mutation rate, which is as I described it. My use of the rate was also correct mathematically.I used the same priori number that the divergence calculation implied except my calculation worked backward from the empirical findings of the human genome as a mutation rate. Again you need a math course and a better understanding of my principle calculation.
From Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans
The mutation rate is from empirical findings, albeit ones that are out of date. The actual sequence divergence you use is also from empirical findings, but is the wrong thing to use in this calculation, which you would know if you'd understood my previous post. The number you end up calculating means nothing at all.You still got the numbers mixed up my mutation rate is from actual empirical findings (u rate). The actual sequence divergence is the (k rate) Estimated at 4%. You are backwards on this. Again I must teach you the math
No, we just have to know what it is that we're calculating. See above.I am having real problems with your understanding of such things. First you say Yes there is a 4% difference in the genome, then you say no there isnt a 4% difference in the genome. The evolutionist must draw finer and finer obscuration around the simple reasoning, finer divisions and finer definitions like 24 separate definitions of a species.
What paper is that?By the way did you also write the paper on the 6% variation in genomes between chimps and humans? I see at least four primary authors cited. Please do not claim that
I should have said 60, not 50. I was referring to the recent studies directly identifying new mutations by sequencing the whole genomes of entire families to great depth. Specifically, one study [Roach, J.C. et al. Science 328, 636639 (2010)] estimated a total of 67 new mutations in the offspring. (This is probably just point mutations, but I'm not going to bother checking. Increase by ~10% for all mutations if so.) The second study [Conrad, D.F. et al. Nature Genetics 467, 10611073 (2011)], looked at two families, one West African and one European, and estimated mutation rates of 59 and 71 mutations, respectively. Other recent studies, looking in and around genes(*), have found slightly higher numbers, but still much lower than 130 mutations per person. Lynch (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 961968 (2010)) got an estimate of 78, while Awadalla et al (Am. J. Hum. Genet. 87, 316324 (2011)) got an estimate of 83.Actually the newer number is about 130 new mutations per individual an that includes the non protein coding segments stay up on the new findings please.
It isn't.Hi,
I'm a creationist.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Gen 1,2).
How is evolution theory consistent with these scriptures?
You don't have to, if you don't care about believing what's real.And if it's not, why should I care?
How can we forget?Remember, I'm a creationist.
HiHi,
I'm a creationist.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Gen 1,2).
How is evolution theory consistent with these scriptures? And if it's not, why should I care?
Remember, I'm a creationist.
So what does this tell you? there is a God or there isn't? which one is it?
So what is the problem? why don't you leave others to believe as they want? why do you feel the need to try and prove that your God exists? you can't prove that your God exists and they can't prove that your God doesn't exist,There most certainly is a God… in fact what we see around us has no other explanation. Sciences are the study of God’s creation and he has given us the pleasure of exploring them.
You mean like I don't?why do you feel the need to try and prove that your God exists?
No -- [mundane] science is pretty consistent.Ironically, science has been evolving over the years, inconsistently, right?
Since I was an author of that paper, this is not exactly news to me.
I must apologize Mr. Boyle I did not read in the parenthesis behind your name
By Alan Boyle(alias sfs) Science editor
msnbc.com
What are the limitations of mundane science?No -- [mundane] science is pretty consistent.
Mundane science is myopic.What are the limitations of mundane science?
Mundane science is myopic.
I use this passage as an example:
2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
To compensate for their myopia, they keep building bigger and better "glasses" (microscopes & telescopes) to feed their prophet Landru,* who then predicts and prophesies for them.
* My collective term for cyberscience.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?