Destroying Evolution in less than 5 minutes

[1Tonne]

And there are also Christians reading this who see how you behave and interact with people on here and know how NOT to argue against evolution directly because of you.

Also you're breaking forum rules for this subforum:
Statement of Purpose - General Apologetics: This is not a forum where Christians are asked to defend their faith against objections and criticism from non-believers.

If I were to be officially reprimanded simply for presenting a Creationist view in the "Evolution and Creation" subforum, it would unfortunately give the appearance that evolutionists here are unable to defend their position, and that the only way to “win” is by having opposing voices silenced. That would not reflect well on the fairness or openness of this discussion space.

 

[sjastro]

You’ve provided a helpful summary of the standard response: that neutral mutations, not adaptive ones, account for the majority of substitutions. But that doesn’t resolve Haldane’s original point, it sidesteps it. Haldane wasn’t quantifying neutral drift; he was quantifying the cost of adaptive substitutions, which do bear a reproductive cost and are necessary for the evolution of novel traits.
The dilemma remains: how can a species acquire the number of adaptive changes required to explain major phenotypic transformations in the available evolutionary time? Saying ‘it’s only 1%’ doesn’t solve the math, it concedes the bottleneck.
Hundreds of posts later, the core constraint still stands. The original challenge has not been mathematically overturned.

Good grief this is denial mode of the highest order, try to comprehend the reasons given below why bottlenecks are not formed by comparing how the dilemma is modelled to what is happening in the real world of evolution.

Haldane’s dilemma is based on the following parameters.

(1) It assumes adaptive substitution occurs in 100% of cases.
(2) Adaptive substitutions occur in single lineages.
(3) It assumes an infinitely large unchanging population size specifically modelled to eliminate the possibility of genetic drift.
(4) It ignores the fixing of neutral mutations into the population and how it effects the reproductive costs.

In the real world however based on observation and experiments.

(a) Adaptive substitutions only account for up to 1% of cases.
(b) Adaptive (and neutral) substitutions occur in parallel in populations.
(c) Population size is finite and does change. Genetic drift becomes an important factor in small population sizes.
(d) Neutral mutations are by far the most common, do not present an evolutionary cost and are fixed into the population by genetic drift.

It is for these reasons there are no bottle necks in the real world as proposed in the dilemma.

I frequently evaluate AI for the quality of its responses in a role reversal I allowed AI to evaluate my post.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If that's so, then why aren't they giving presentations at conferences, participating in poster sessions, or even showing up and just asking questions?

Their complete absence over decades speaks volumes, does it not?

Those who can't do pretend for money from a ministry.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Anyone can get a book published. Note that River_Jordan specifically mentions "giving presentations at conferences, participating in poster sessions, or even showing up and just asking questions" as examples. The first two are definitely more how scientists put information out.

And those ex-scientists working for ministries absolutely know this.

 

[BCP1928]

If I were to be officially reprimanded simply for presenting a Creationist view in the "Evolution and Creation" subforum, it would unfortunately give the appearance that evolutionists here are unable to defend their position, and that the only way to “win” is by having opposing voices silenced. That would not reflect well on the fairness or openness of this discussion space.

If you were to be "officially reprimanded" it would be for denying the faith of Christians who reject a literal and inerrant interpretation of scripture, which you have done repeatedly.

 

[1Tonne]

If you were to be "officially reprimanded" it would be for denying the faith of Christians who reject a literal and inerrant interpretation of scripture, which you have done repeatedly.

In this thread, I do not think that I have denied the faith of Christians who believe in evolution. They do believe. The issue is that they give animals the glory that belongs to God when it is God who made the animals we see today. So, they have a belief, and it will be God who judges.

 

[BCP1928]

In this thread, I do not think that I have denied the faith of Christians who believe in evolution. They do believe. The issue is that they give animals the glory that belongs to God when it is God who made the animals we see today. So, they have a belief, and it will be God who judges.

You falsely attribute an heretical belief to them, which amounts to the same thing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In this thread, I do not think that I have denied the faith of Christians who believe in evolution. They do believe. The issue is that they give animals the glory that belongs to God when it is God who made the animals we see today. So, they have a belief, and it will be God who judges.

Oh good grief! So now, according to you, not only do I have erroneous beliefs, but I'm a practical idolater too? Seriously?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No. History shows that even if something could mathematically undermine a dominant theory, it doesn’t mean the community would immediately overturn it. Paradigms often persist despite strong counterarguments, sometimes for decades, because of entrenched assumptions, institutional momentum, and the difficulty of overturning widely accepted frameworks.

But it's been 70 year since Haldane's Dilemma was put forward and NOTHING has been done to finally, in your claim, show that evolution is a mathematical impossibility. Wouldn't the use of Occam's Razor and even simple logic just outright show that means that evolution ISN'T the mathematical impossibility you claim it to be and that Haldane's Dilemma ISN'T the smoking gun that will destroy evolution you claim it will?

My comment was made in the general sense of Romans 1:18–23, which says people suppress the truth about God in unrighteousness. I do understand that some professing Christians, like River Jordan, believe in evolution. In those cases, I believe the issue is an inconsistent worldview, honouring God as Creator in word but attributing the creative work to natural processes instead.

Yeah, here's where you're screwing up. People don't BELIEVE in evolution. Evolution isn't another faith system, nor a theological argument or a morality system. It's a scientific term used to describe the biological fact that in nature we see biological lifeforms change and adapt to suit their environment due to environmental pressures. A person CAN be a Christian with God as the Creator of all things AND still accept evolution as a scientific fact. Despite what you or others think, they are not mutually exclusive.

Also, will not lie, but it sounds like a VERY roundabout way to say that River_Jordan et al aren't Christians, at least in your eyes, which is against the wider forum rules. Again, I direct to the forum's state of purpose - Calling anyone's faith, belief in the Bible or walk with Christ into question because they hold a different view is not allowed.

I understand your concern, but the subforum is titled "Evolution and Creation", which naturally invites discussion from both perspectives. I am approaching this from a Christian viewpoint, aiming to present evidence for Creation and to expose the weaknesses of evolution.
My intention is to challenge ideas that contradict Scripture, so that Christians who read these threads can be equipped to respond when faced with similar arguments.
I believe I have been engaging within the purpose of this section, and I have sought to defend Creation faithfully.

Engaging with the subject of Creationism is fine and is the purpose of the subforum, but when you start doing nothing but quoting scripture, and also calling it specifically apologetics, then it could be called into question your intent.

If I were to be officially reprimanded simply for presenting a Creationist view in the "Evolution and Creation" subforum, it would unfortunately give the appearance that evolutionists here are unable to defend their position, and that the only way to “win” is by having opposing voices silenced. That would not reflect well on the fairness or openness of this discussion space.

In all my time here, I have to see anyone officially or unofficial reprimanded for present a Creationist viewpoint. In fact, I've seen more people be reprimanded for presenting a non-Creationist view point and even that is few and far between. Now, rude behaviour and general bad attitudes towards other Christians and non-Christians from certain posters like this:

In this thread, I do not think that I have denied the faith of Christians who believe in evolution. They do believe. The issue is that they give animals the glory that belongs to God when it is God who made the animals we see today. So, they have a belief, and it will be God who judges.

Which does violate the statement of purpose that I quoted above - "Calling anyone's faith, belief in the Bible or walk with Christ into question because they hold a different view is not allowed."

 

[Larniavc]

This has already been covered earlier in the thread.

Hand waving does not count. Are you new at this?

 

[Larniavc]

The issue is that they give animals the glory that belongs to God when it is God who made the animals we see today.

Steady on that man. I like to have a gentle pop at Christians as much as the next dastardly atheist but that’s a bit much.

 

[River Jordan]

Haldane's Dilemma stands or falls on the math, not on what you think of Kent Hovind or me.

That's just a dodge. I identified two fundamental flaws in the OP's argument that render the argument worthless. All you've done since is deflect and deny.

The core question is whether there's enough time, given mutation and fixation rates, to account for the observed genetic differences between humans and our supposed ancestors.

That question was based on two fundamental errors, that each nucleotide difference requires its own individual mutation event and that each change has to selectively beneficial. Those are very, very wrong.

Also, how do you know what the genome of the LCA even was?

That question hasn't been convincingly answered across hundreds of posts.

I'm confident you see it that way, but you're extremely biased on this subject. You've made it very clear that if evolution is true then your particular version of Christianity is wrong. That's why you refuse to acknowledge or even address most of the rebuttals you've received.

You’ve provided a helpful summary of the standard response: that neutral mutations, not adaptive ones, account for the majority of substitutions. But that doesn’t resolve Haldane’s original point, it sidesteps it. Haldane wasn’t quantifying neutral drift; he was quantifying the cost of adaptive substitutions, which do bear a reproductive cost and are necessary for the evolution of novel traits.

That's just wrong, and in such a basic way it serves as another example of your bias. If the majority of the nucleotide differences between modern humans and the LCA are in non-functional portions of the genome and/or are functionally redundant, then the assumptions that the OP relies on are very, very wrong, which make the argument itself wrong.

Unfortunately your bias and the high stakes (for you) prevent you from admitting any of that.

The dilemma remains: how can a species acquire the number of adaptive changes required to explain major phenotypic transformations in the available evolutionary time? Saying ‘it’s only 1%’ doesn’t solve the math, it concedes the bottleneck.

No it doesn't. You really don't think there's any statistical difference between all of the nucleotide changes having to be selectively beneficial and only 1% being so? You don't think going from 100% needing to be beneficial to only 1% being so makes any difference to the math?

Wow.

Hundreds of posts later, the core constraint still stands. The original challenge has not been mathematically overturned.

That's just mindless denialism.

This has already been covered earlier in the thread. If you're going to post links, at least take the time to read the discussion first. I’m not repeating myself just because you couldn’t be bothered.

Here you show more of your bias. Someone posted a link to a paper about the very subject you're trying to debate and rather than read it in good faith and see what it says, you make up a lame excuse to not even look at it. That shows you're not interested in the science or in learning anything, but instead are just here to mindlessly repeat a fundamentally flawed creationist talking point.

You’re proving my point. If the dilemma were truly resolved, it wouldn’t take over 300 posts, assumptions revised by orders of magnitude, and personal insults to defend it. If you think the thread hasn’t already addressed your paper, read it again, slowly this time.

The reason there's 300 posts is because you absolutely refuse to acknowledge your basic mistakes, make up excuses to wave away pertinent information, and mindlessly deny much of what people post to you.

You raise creation up above God and give it the Glory for why we are here. So, yes, Christians who take the Glory away from God have issues, and yet they do not see it because in their own wisdom, they claim to be wise. (This is a sad thing, and I do feel for you. That is part of the reason I stay on these threads. In the hope that you may start to honour God. But sadly, I know that you will continue to mock what I say, even though it is written in scripture.)

And there we have it. That's what this is really about and is why you keep repeating the same mistakes and waving away most of what's posted to you. This isn't about the science, it's about your belief that evolution takes away glory from God.

On that note, Amos teaches that God creates the mountains and wind but I don't think it takes away from His glory to acknowledge the existence of tectonics, volcanoes, temperature gradients, etc.

I hope you understand the point.

 

[River Jordan]

But it's been 70 year since Haldane's Dilemma was put forward and NOTHING has been done to finally, in your claim, show that evolution is a mathematical impossibility. Wouldn't the use of Occam's Razor and even simple logic just outright show that means that evolution ISN'T the mathematical impossibility you claim it to be and that Haldane's Dilemma ISN'T the smoking gun that will destroy evolution you claim it will?



Yeah, here's where you're screwing up. People don't BELIEVE in evolution. Evolution isn't another faith system, nor a theological argument or a morality system. It's a scientific term used to describe the biological fact that in nature we see biological lifeforms change and adapt to suit their environment due to environmental pressures. A person CAN be a Christian with God as the Creator of all things AND still accept evolution as a scientific fact. Despite what you or others think, they are not mutually exclusive.

Also, will not lie, but it sounds like a VERY roundabout way to say that River_Jordan et al aren't Christians, at least in your eyes, which is against the wider forum rules. Again, I direct to the forum's state of purpose - Calling anyone's faith, belief in the Bible or walk with Christ into question because they hold a different view is not allowed.



Engaging with the subject of Creationism is fine and is the purpose of the subforum, but when you start doing nothing but quoting scripture, and also calling it specifically apologetics, then it could be called into question your intent.



In all my time here, I have to see anyone officially or unofficial reprimanded for present a Creationist viewpoint. In fact, I've seen more people be reprimanded for presenting a non-Creationist view point and even that is few and far between. Now, rude behaviour and general bad attitudes towards other Christians and non-Christians from certain posters like this:



Which does violate the statement of purpose that I quoted above - "Calling anyone's faith, belief in the Bible or walk with Christ into question because they hold a different view is not allowed."

The last time I participated in these debates it really struck me how eager some fundamentalists were to be a sort of apostasy police force. When I find out a fellow Christian interprets scripture differently than me or differs in some other way, it doesn't bother me one bit. That's just the nature of being human.

But the fundamentalists can't stand it and seem to have a very real drive to go on the attack. It's really odd (to me).

 

[public hermit]

But the fundamentalists can't stand it and seem to have a very real drive to go on the attack. It's really odd (to me).

I'm with you. It is odd, but I think it's mostly grounded in fear. It's fear of losing the subjective certainty that a strong dogmatism provides. It's a closed system and any crack will bring the whole thing down. More and more, I feel badly for fundamentalists because it's not an easy thing to escape without a fairly radical restructuring of how one sees things. And the end result can look very different than what one previously held to.

That being said, Christians should have a sense of both the awe and the inscrutable nature of the divine, which should also prevent their faith from becoming a closed system of ideas. Our theological heritage is that God is ultimately inscrutable, even in the light of Trinitarian doctrine. Fundamentalists put their faith in symbols (a set of words/ideas/concepts) instead of allowing symbols to lead them to what is essentially a mystery. With a more open stance towards one's understanding of God (or lack of understanding), evolution just becomes more light into that mystery.

Christians should be thrilled with theory of evolution. It should contribute to our sense of awe and gratitude.

 

[AV1611VET]

That being said, Christians should have a sense of both the awe and the inscrutable nature of the divine, which should also prevent their faith from becoming a closed system of ideas.

Christianity isn't esoteric.

Christians should be thrilled with theory of evolution. It should contribute to our sense of awe and gratitude.

Oh, I just go nuts over it!

I especially like the part where I'm a mutant copy error, made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[public hermit]

Christianity isn't esoteric.



Oh, I just go nuts over it!

I especially like the part where I'm a mutant copy error, made in the image and likeness of God.

A mutant copy error? I don't follow.

 

[AV1611VET]

A mutant copy error? I don't follow.

From AI Overview:

A "mutant copy error" refers to a mistake that occurs during the process of DNA replication, where a new DNA strand is copied incorrectly, leading to a change in the DNA sequence of the copied strand. These errors, if not corrected by DNA repair mechanisms, can result in mutations, which are permanent changes in the DNA sequence.

According to the theory of evolution, if it wasn't for copy errors, we would look just like our fathers.

 

[public hermit]

From AI Overview:

A "mutant copy error" refers to a mistake that occurs during the process of DNA replication, where a new DNA strand is copied incorrectly, leading to a change in the DNA sequence of the copied strand. These errors, if not corrected by DNA repair mechanisms, can result in mutations, which are permanent changes in the DNA sequence.

According to the theory of evolution, if it wasn't for copy errors, we would look just like our fathers.

You make it sound scary like mutations are something other than changes. Some mutations are beneficial and some are harmful, some are errors, but those mutations contribute to our uniqueness as individuals. I'm still not seeing the problem.

 

[River Jordan]

I'm with you. It is odd, but I think it's mostly grounded in fear. It's fear of losing the subjective certainty that a strong dogmatism provides. It's a closed system and any crack will bring the whole thing down. More and more, I feel badly for fundamentalists because it's not an easy thing to escape without a fairly radical restructuring of how one sees things. And the end result can look very different than what one previously held to.

Although I try and stay away from internet psychoanalysis, I think you're spot on. In my youth ministry activities it's not unusual to come across kids who really, really need certainty.

That being said, Christians should have a sense of both the awe and the inscrutable nature of the divine, which should also prevent their faith from becoming a closed system of ideas. Our theological heritage is that God is ultimately inscrutable, even in the light of Trinitarian doctrine. Fundamentalists put their faith in symbols (a set of words/ideas/concepts) instead of allowing symbols to lead them to what is essentially a mystery. With a more open stance towards one's understanding of God (or lack of understanding), evolution just becomes more light into that mystery.

Christians should be thrilled with theory of evolution. It should contribute to our sense of awe and gratitude.

Exactly! A creation that runs on its own and can adapt to all sorts of changes is far superior to one that needs constant "guidance" (which is just constant micromanagement). Plus there's the fact that evolution is just plain reality, which means it has to be part of God's creation.

 

[sjastro]

Trump recently stated egg prices dropped 92% yet wholesale prices have clearly increased.
Yet some MAGA supporters accepted the assertion because of their blind faith in Trump.

This is an example of cognitive dissonance. When an individual has a strong faith which is brought into question by contradictory evidence, the individual experiences internal conflict and reacts negatively such as going into denial mode.

This type of behaviour has been observed in this thread.