Foundation

[vossler]

I was really just hoping that those who see things (the things in the OP) differently than I do could explain why.

I rarely post here exactly because of what has happened to this OP; it was hijacked by a lot of TEs who gang tackled another Creationist with the hope of overwhelming him with external 'data' from obscure places that supports their view instead of a coherent biblical presentation. Sadly this is typical and keeps a lot of people away.

 

[Kennesaw42]

At last, a voice of sanity, heard above the cacophonous din. Thanks.

 

[philadiddle]

Creationism is a view of the origin of life and the universe, just as Evolution is. Both are, thus, philosophical constructs. Neither works very well as a tool for making short-term predictions. Billions of dollars have been invested in pro-evolution research. If it can be argued that the evolutionist philosophy aided or guided such research to achieve noteworthy results, it can be argued with at least as much rigor that said philosophy served rather to retard and misguide such research. In view of the fact that the evolution crowd has gotten virtually all of the grants, you would have thought that we would be awash in infallible proofs for evolution, whereas in reality, if I were an evolutionist, I would be embarrassed by the paucity of "evidence." Darwin himself would be embarrassed.

In view of that same fact, how do you explain that we've "come so far" and yet there are sites like this one, where grown men and women expend quite a lot of energy arguing with one another. If the evidence is that obvious and that unassailable, why bother to argue about it? After all, evolutionary teaching has constituted the accepted orthodoxy for nearly a century now, in academia, in the media, in the laboratory.

I have never been an evolutionist, but I suspect that, were I one, I would be feeling very insecure right about now, as advances in cell biology, for example, are posing enormous problems for the theory. Isn't that it? Isn't it an unspoken and unspeakable insecurity that drives many of the posters here? How else explain the tenacity and even ferocity with which you argue your cause?

I know you will suggest that I'm insecure in my belief in the factuality of the Genesis account. I assure you that is not so. I defend the Genesis account because, to do so, is to defend the honor of God, who either did what he said in Genesis, or cannot be trusted to have done what he said he did in the New Testament. Either the creation account and the biblical history of redemption are trustworthy, or neither are. You can't have it both ways. If the Genesis account is false, then God has deceived us, and cannot be trusted not to have deceived us about other issues, such as our redemption through Christ's blood.

So basically, you're side stepping the specific examples of evolution that I sited and side stepping the industries that I pointed to that rely on deep time and evolution to work. All you've posted are vague assertions. If you really aren't interested in understanding God's creation, then why are you even on this board posting? Are you that convinced that there's an evil evolutionist conspiracy that you feel you should comment on it? How about looking at the data with us and seeing where it objectively takes us.

 

[philadiddle]

I rarely post here exactly because of what has happened to this OP; it was hijacked by a lot of TEs who gang tackled another Creationist with the hope of overwhelming him with external 'data' from obscure places that supports their view instead of a coherent biblical presentation. Sadly this is typical and keeps a lot of people away.

Obscure places? Research from the Osaka university is a pretty specific place, and the Lenski experiments on E Coli are also very specific.

But don't worry I understand your frustration, when I was a YEC I found that I couldn't objectively deal with the evidence in Gods creation without it leading to evolution. However, instead of running I accepted it, it's such a beautiful process for creation.

 

[Kennesaw42]

So basically, you're side stepping the specific examples of evolution that I sited and side stepping the industries that I pointed to that rely on deep time and evolution to work. All you've posted are vague assertions. If you really aren't interested in understanding God's creation, then why are you even on this board posting? Are you that convinced that there's an evil evolutionist conspiracy that you feel you should comment on it? How about looking at the data with us and seeing where it objectively takes us.

A virtual study in false premises.

I'm not "side-stepping" anything mate, I'm just not dancing to your tune. I've asked many hard-hitting questions here today, and you and your friends have not really answered them, so who's side-stepping?

Industries that "rely on deep time and evolution" to work? Poppycock. The only industry like that is the public education industry and the evolution lobby itself.

You call my assertions "vague" because you cannot rebut them. You ask "why are you even on this board posting?" which just shows how much you want to silence my voice (and voices like mine).

And what's up with the "you're convinced [of] an evil evolutionist conspiracy" canard? I've never used that language, so stop bating me with it.

Do you really imagine that your "data" are taking you somewhere "objective" (not real sure what that means)? Give me a break. You guys aren't looking at any more data (least of all "objectively") than I am. You post links to "authorities" (that you found in the first place because they support you're pet theory) and fondly imagine that you're doing hard science on the cutting edge.

But, say, you have a cozy place here where you can all get together and feel good about bashing Creationists. And, in so doing, you seem to also claim that you are honoring God.

Evolution developed into the juggernaut that it has been (though decreasingly as it finds itself more and more in the hot seat now) nurtured in the philosophical soil of materialism and atheism. You think that you, as a Theist, can marry into it. Fine. That's your business. But you do your cause and your church a disservice in belittling your creationist brothers in Christ.

And, if I may paraphrase what the brother said who posted a while ago: that's why nobody much shows up here to hear you preach except the choir.

 

[vossler]

Obscure places? Research from the Osaka university is a pretty specific place, and the Lenski experiments on E Coli are also very specific.

I'm sure for you this and all the other places you can cite are more than obscure and are extremely relevant however to me, as a man of God, they carry no weight and are irrelevant.

But don't worry I understand your frustration, when I was a YEC I found that I couldn't objectively deal with the evidence in Gods creation without it leading to evolution. However, instead of running I accepted it, it's such a beautiful process for creation.

Clearly you don't understand me or any of my frustrations. I am not in the least frustrated by you or other TEs, saddened yes, concerned definitely, but I have no issues with the 'evidence' that evolution purportedly demonstrates or claims as truth. I have but one source of truth and it isn't man-centered.

 

[philadiddle]

I'm not "side-stepping" anything mate, I'm just not dancing to your tune. I've asked many hard-hitting questions here today, and you and your friends have not really answered them, so who's side-stepping?

Could you please repeat one of the hard-hitting questions that you've asked that you think I've sidestepped? I'd like to answer it for you.

Industries that "rely on deep time and evolution" to work? Poppycock. The only industry like that is the public education industry and the evolution lobby itself.

I listed several specific industries, the oil industry being a rather important one. But you aren't addressing the specific industries and explaining how deep time makes no difference, you are just making vague claims that it isn't true.

You call my assertions "vague" because you cannot rebut them.

Actually, I call your assertions vague because they are vague, you never cite any specific information or data to support your assertions, and that makes them vague.

You ask "why are you even on this board posting?" which just shows how much you want to silence my voice (and voices like mine).

It's not that I think you should be silenced, it's that this is a discussion board but whenever someone actually goes into details about the science behind this discussion, you put your fingers in your ears and claim that it's all just dogmatic poppycock.

And what's up with the "you're convinced [of] an evil evolutionist conspiracy" canard? I've never used that language, so stop bating me with it.

True, you have never said "evil evolutionist conspiracy" but you've made it loud and clear that you think scientists are deliberately being hypocritical by not adhering to the scientific method to push their dogmatic agenda. Close enough.

Do you really imagine that your "data" are taking you somewhere "objective" (not real sure what that means)? Give me a break.

I'm surprised that you don't know what "objective" means. If two men are fighting with each other over who is the father of a child, they can come up with all sorts of stories to explain why they are the true father. In the end, we can have a DNA test done and it will "objectively" show who the father is. There is no more arguing after that, opinion and storytelling don't matter when objective evidence is present. I suppose that one of them could continue to deny the DNA test and make up excuses for why it's not reliable, but in the end it is objective evidence.

There are many things in science that objectively verify the age of the earth and evolution, it got to the point where my opinion wasn't good enough and I had to accept that evidence.

You guys aren't looking at any more data (least of all "objectively") than I am. You post links to "authorities" (that you found in the first place because they support you're pet theory) and fondly imagine that you're doing hard science on the cutting edge.

I don't really know what data you're looking at, but based on the few discussions we've had it seems that you aren't looking at any data. In our other conversation about astronomy I cited specific problems with the YEC view and you ignored it. In this conversation I cited specific beneficial mutations and you ignored them. I also cited specific industries where the science was actually useful, and you just brushed it off. It's obvious that you are willing to dismiss objective evidence so that you can cling to your doctorine of creationism, which is sad because you are missing out on some great science AND some great lessons that can be learned in theology when you understand the creation account how it was meant to be.

But, say, you have a cozy place here where you can all get together and feel good about bashing Creationists. And, in so doing, you seem to also claim that you are honoring God.

You've continually insulted scientists in many of your posts, don't point the finger just yet.

Evolution developed into the juggernaut that it has been (though decreasingly as it finds itself more and more in the hot seat now) nurtured in the philosophical soil of materialism and atheism. You think that you, as a Theist, can marry into it. Fine. That's your business. But you do your cause and your church a disservice in belittling your creationist brothers in Christ.

You are the one who jumped into this forum and said "the Big Bang monopoly has become a scandalous example of how scientists are, when (monetary) push comes to (peer-pressure) shove, OFTEN so very far from following their loudly touted Law of Scientific Method whereby they supposedly "follow only where the evidence leads" and "eschew subjectivism and bias at all costs," yadayadayada. Their sanctimoniousness does get tedious." Don't make it sound like you're the innocent victim of name calling and belittling. You seem to do just fine at dishing it out too.

If you are interested in discussing the industries that I mentioned how they do or do not use deep time and evolution then let's carry on in a civil manner. If you really aren't interested in actually seeing how our worldviews match up with reality then that's fine too, we can just let it be. (Yes, that last line sounds a bit condescending, but I mean it in a friendly poke kind of a way)

 

[Assyrian]

I rarely post here exactly because of what has happened to this OP;

Welcome back Vossler

it was hijacked by a lot of TEs who gang tackled another Creationist

That is what happens of Creationists stay away from the forum.

with the hope of overwhelming him with external 'data' from obscure places that supports their view instead of a coherent biblical presentation. Sadly this is typical and keeps a lot of people away.

You know in all our discussions you have never given us a coherent biblical basis for that signature of yours. The only basis for creationism is a literal interpretation of Genesis yet you have never come up with a biblical reason we have to automatically assume it is literal in a bible full of parable, poetry and metaphor.

I'm sure for you this and all the other places you can cite are more than obscure and are extremely relevant however to me, as a man of God, they carry no weight and are irrelevant.
Clearly you don't understand me or any of my frustrations. I am not in the least frustrated by you or other TEs, saddened yes, concerned definitely, but I have no issues with the 'evidence' that evolution purportedly demonstrates or claims as truth. I have but one source of truth and it isn't man-centered.

You don't have issues with the evidence because you ignore it all? We have been discussing the way creationism is anti-science, this is a pretty good illustration.

Anyway, it is good to see you here Vossler I have missed you.

 

[theFijian]

I was really just hoping that those who see things (the things in the OP) differently than I do could explain why.

Hi verve, I replied in post #9 and none of the Creationists seemed to have an issue with it, perhaps there is common ground after all. Interestingly Paul in 1 Cor 2 also says "I decided to know nothing except a literal interpretation of Genesis and young earth creationism".... ah now wait that's my mistake he actually says "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified".

 

[Greg1234]

Hi verve, I replied in post #9 and none of the Creationists seemed to have an issue with it, perhaps there is common ground after all. Interestingly Paul in 1 Cor 2 also says "I decided to know nothing except a literal interpretation of Genesis and young earth creationism".... ah now wait that's my mistake he actually says "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified".

Reality begins at the beginning. Though it seems completely valid to believe that drastically altering the beginning will have no effect on the New Testament so we should just run behind Jesus like a good christian and let the "TE" alone to implement Darwinism, it does. And as explained before, an allegory is not in the favor of materialism especially when dealing with historical elements.

As an example, the birth of Jesus through the means outlined (immaculate conception) really did happen. But we term it as a "virgin birth". "Virgin birth" here is an allegory, a term meant to encapsulate the immensity and complexity of spiritual or metaphysical occurrences being implemented. The term is meant to show the event from a physical standpoint looking in on it from that physical perspective. It's not as simple as saying "don't take the virgin birth literally". It is literally, a virgin birth, while at the same time it is allegorically a "virgin birth". Additionally, it is not as simple as "Goddidit" and material science is not at liberty to "interpret" virgin birth. Its only through familiarizing yourself with metaphysical concepts can you even scratch the surface and attempt to decode it. If Genesis is to be analyzed from an allegorical perspective, this is the model.

"Virgin birth" here may be seen as an allegory. Ie, it stands from a material perspective looking in on the event. Yet it does not mean a test-tube baby, artificial insemination or any other concept because of "look in algebra do you see God". In such carelessness you guys will eventually get to the New Testament or open up the gates for your more immersed compatriots, but we begin with Genesis. It follows the same pattern in regards to historicity and the use of material terms. If "virgin birth" is bad enough for materially inclined personnel, then in the interpretation, it only gets worse as there is even more spiritual components involved. The historicity is retained, and birth is retained as a birth as given with the "how god did it" being spiritually based.

Similarly, if "created" is bad enough for materially inclined personnel, it only gets worse when an interpretation is implemented with the "how god did it" being heavily based on the implementation of the metaphysical. Therefore it's out of the frying pan and into the fire. Plus there is no reason to alter that interpretation seeing that it is in accord with the scientific evidence showing that man is created as man.

One man said "literalism", and the rest of you jumped on the bandwagon without a second thought just because it services the Darwinian route. But it doesn't help you guys to go from God to even more influence from God. The driver should have at least told you that.

 

[Greg1234]

Kennesaw wrote:


First of all, please recognize that in making a statement like that, the burden of proof is on you. That would entail getting information from someone trained and competent in the relevant fields of genetics and biology to back up your statement. Simply making the statement as if you are an authority on biology, without any references, doesn't help others see Christians as having integrity.

However, to be generous, I see that some have already supplied you with documented examples of new information and functions arising from mutations. I'll also add to that, while helping with a basic background on how that happens.

Fortunately we have some actual scientific experiments depicting what goes on. As already outlined http://www.christianforums.com/t7523023-3/#post56437641 the vast majority of mutations are deleterious to a given population and degrades the genome over time. A beneficial mutation would go towards offsetting long term degradation before it begins to provide overall long term improvements. In essence, you keep accumulating a debt of 1000 dollars per month, but at the end of every month you pay 300 dollars. Although 300 dollars is "beneficial", the long term effects of the accrued debts are still chipping away. Although the given mantra from Darwinism is "millions and millions of years are needed", this only increases the the amount of time, thus increasing the net total.

Behe's new paper sheds even more light on the issue outlining that the overwhelming majority of 'adaptive mutations', or the mutations which have a beneficial response to the environment actually are the result of a loss of function or modification-of-function. In extremely rare cases is there an actual Gain-of-function. And within these rare cases, it is theorized that due to the high number of LOF and MOF before a GOF occurs, the GOF mutations only ameliorates the state of a previous loss of function. In either case, over a long period of time there will be a net loss with a gain of function most likely rectifying a previous LOF, or amidst the massive accumulation of LOF and MOF(some of which degrade the element affected) does nothing to overall improvement.

Darwinists will have you believe that things improve overtime, but depreciation is also to be taken into consideration. When random mutations are not wearing down the genome, even simple adaptations to the environment degrades overall function.

 

[theFijian]

Fortunately we have some actual scientific experiments depicting what goes on. As already outlined http://www.christianforums.com/t7523023-3/#post56437641 the vast majority of mutations are deleterious to a given population....<snip>

Perhaps you could explain what anything you said has to do with the OP or my post which you quoted? It looks like the kind of reply the OP wasn't wanting.

 

[Mallon]

2ble post. Not sure how that happened.

 

[Mallon]

Just give me a scenario for how birds evolved from reptiles.

Well, for one, it's unlikely that feathers first evolved for flight, as you appear to assume. More than likely, feathers first evolved for the purposes of insulation and/or display. This is evidenced by the fact that, when feathers first appear on dinosaurs in the fossil record, they resemble down or hair-like integument. Feathers were only co-opted later on for flight (a process called exaptation), probably via a gliding stage, as seen in some modern squirrels, fish, and lizards. Interestingly, Ken Dial did a study a few years back showing how a half-wing, though not useful for flight, can still enable some birds to run up vertical inclines (like tree trunks) to safety:

How A New Theory Of Bird Evolution Came About

It is possible that flight may have evolved through this adaptive intermediate stage as well.

No, that doesn't work. Because we're not talking about one super mutation that, presto, gives the guy wings. But of thousands and thousands, just to get from a to b. So it doesn't work.

No again on bird wings. These components form an irreducible complexity; they all have to be present at once for any one of them to function. So, likelihood of that randomly occurring: very close to zero.

You're assuming that all features, if they evolved, must have evolved in an instant, for their current use. This is false. As I just explained, many supposedly "irreducibly complex" structures actually evolved through intermediate stages, each of which possessed a unique function in their own right. For example, the human eye very likely evolved through a series of increasingly complex stages -- all of which are functional and useful -- starting with a simple eyespot. The bacterial flagellum evidently evolved from a simple Type III secretory system. The blood-clotting cascade -- thought by Michael Behe to be irreducibly complex -- is missing a factor in whales, thereby negating the notion of its irreducible complexity. The key, here, is exaptation -- modern adaptations have evolved from previous stages, each of which was uniquely adaptive in its own right.

Fact is, there are thousands of instances of interlocking functionality in nature, where two faculties or abilities or functions are interdependent. Evolution has no explanation.

Take a spider. It has to develop the ability to exude the sticky web stuff, but also, simultaneously, the knowhow required to weave the web. Oh, and by the way, it already was a blood-sucker, presumably, so...I wonder how it got to the jugulars (that's another joke, okay?) of its prey without the, uh, web thingy. And this is a gross oversimplification, of course, of a very sophisticated creature.

And then there's the diving bell spider. You like links? Try this one (not a creationist site either, and I apologize for it's being readily understandable without advanced biological training): Diving bell spider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These guys build their web-nests underwater, haul air down into it, and live there, breathing air underwater. What's the problem? Couldn't have evolved, that's what. No way. Too many things have to go right the first time, or it fails.

Or how do you evolve the interdependency of plant pollination via honeybees?

Oh, if the probability of animal life evolving weren't super small by itself, then you have to multiply that by the probability of plant life evolving in tandem, and then multiply that by the probability that they would both happen in parallel, in just the right environment, on just the right planet, with just the right types and amounts of elements and compounds (like the miracle compound water; boy, that was a lucky one), and just the right amount of heat, and gravity, and atmosphere, and on and on.

And what about consciousness? Boy that must have been quite an event the first time that happened. Hal: "Hey, Bob. I'm aware of you dude!" Bob: "?" Hal: "Hey, wait a minute. You mean you aren't conscious yet? Well, this is no fun, being the only guy with consciousness in the universe."

But I have to stop. There are just too many problems with evolution to keep track of.

I'm glad you stopped. For one, your supposed problems are just logical fallacies -- they're arguments from ignorance. Just because we might not yet be able to account for every biological phenomenon with evolution doesn't mean that they did not evolve. And it certainly doesn't mean they were therefore magically poofed into existence. Weaknesses in the theory of evolution don't equate to strengths for the kind of Intelligent Design you're promoting.
Second, many of the supposed problems you've mentioned actually have been addressed in the scientific literature. For example...

Evolution of spider webs:
Molecular Architecture and Evolution of a Modular Spider Silk Protein Gene | Science/AAAS
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
The evolution of cryptic spider silk: a behavioral test â&#8364;&#8221; Behav Ecol

Evolution of pollination:
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
SpringerLink - Oecologia, Volume 114, Number 3

(Nevermind the link headings... they should still work.)

Are you familiar with any of this literature??? I get the impression that you're not.

These are fundamental questions. These are basic questions. Until you can answer these, I'm not going to try to find and wade through some obscure paper on the "antifreeze gene."

That's a weird thing to say. Unless I can answer every niggling question you have about individual evolutionary scenarios, you're not going to look at the evidence for novel adaptations that you asked for in the first place??? I almost get the impression that you're purposely trying to avoid the evidence now. You certainly don't seem genuinely interested in learning about the evidence for evolution, as you say.

----------------------------

As for the OP, the whole of Christianity rests on Christ's resurrection and nothing else. Therefore, chaining the faith to a particular interpretation of Genesis is a theologically dangerous thing to do. We are saved by Christ's blood alone; not by our belief that the earth is 6,000 years old. Sorry I didn't get to this sooner.

 

[Mallon]

Fortunately we have some actual scientific experiments depicting what goes on. As already outlined http://www.christianforums.com/t7523023-3/#post56437641 the vast majority of mutations are deleterious to a given population and degrades the genome over time.

How do deleterious mutations degrade the genome if the individuals that carry them, by definition, are weeded out of the genome?

 

[Papias]

Greg wrote:

the vast majority of mutations are deleterious to a given population and degrades the genome over time.

Behe is well known as being unaware of most of the work in his own feild, of failing to provide relevant information that hurts his position, and of describing astrology as science.

Greg, you talk as if you don't understand that natural selection removes harmful mutations. Simply follow the model below to see this. Creationist have to repeatedly ignore basic logic - that harmful mutations are less likely to be passed on to the next generation - to assert that the deletrious mutations matter at all.

To see this, take a population of, say, 100,000 (which is really quite small, the population of deer just in Michigan is over 2,000,000 - 20 times as much). So the mutations will usually be on separate individuals, not on the same individual. Thus, the mutations will or will not be transmitted to the next generation according to the common sense observation of whether they help or hurt.


So let's try an example:


So, out of that population of 100,000 there will be around 20 to 80,000 births in one breeding season, depending on the species. (actually, it's much higher in many species that have litters of more than 2 babies). Of those 50,000 say there are 5000 harmful mutations and 50 beneficial mutations (that's 100 to 1 harmful to beneficial). So those 5,000 fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of the babies will reproduce anyway, most just lose the competition even being unmutated), and most importantly, of course those 50 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 40 of them do so, giving just 3X babies, or 120.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 40 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
120 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of all babies will reproduce anyway), and most importantly, of course those 170 beneficial mutants (120 + 50 new ones) are more likely to reproduce, so say that 150 of them do so, giving 450 babies (again, only 3X, a conservative number since it's much higher in many species).

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 450 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
450 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of all babies will reproduce anyway), and most importantly, of course those 500 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 400 of them do so, giving 1,200 babies (again, only 3X, a conservative number since it's much higher in many species).

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 1,200 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
1200 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 1,250 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 1000 of them do so, giving 3,000 babies.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 3,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
3,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 3,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 2,700 of them do so, giving 8,000 babies.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 8,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
8,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 8,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 7,000 of them do so, giving 21,000 babies.

**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 21,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:

5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
21,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations

So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 21,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that only 18,000 of them do so, giving 54,000 babies.

Hold on though. Our land can only support 50,000 babies per generation, so we only get 50,000 of those.

But look at what has happened! Even though there were always 100 harmful mutations to only 1 good mutation, what one would naively think is an overwhelmingly bad rate, yet at the end of the day we have seen that the good mutations have now spread to every single member of the population, and the harmful mutations are gone!

You can run this again and again with different ratios of good to bad mutations, different mutation rates, and so on. I've changed all those numbers, and you know what? Biologist have too, both by looking at different actual animal populations, and by computer simulations. Both the real world and the simulations show that same things. Those are:

1. The higher the overall mutation rate, the faster the good mutations add up.
2. The faster the reproduction, the faster the good mutations add up.
3. The rate of harmful mutations has no effect. 3 to 1 bad to good, or 20 to 1, or 50 to 1, or 100 to 1 or whatever, has no effect because the harmful mutations are removed by selection anyway. Try it for yourself and see.
4. The larger the total number of good mutations, the faster they spread though the population, but this is less important than conclusion #2.

Does that all help? Looking at it in detail shows that it's all common sense, nothing that's hard to understand.

Papias

 

[Papias]

knee-v wrote:

I was really just hoping that those who see things (the things in the OP) differently than I do could explain why.

Sorry, I don't have much to add in answer to your OP. I agree that it would be better if we stayed on topic more here on CF.

In the case of the thread I started, it got derailed more than once because creationists came on to post PRATTs that were unrelated to the OP, and it turned out they hadn't even bothered to check out the links in the OP that the thread was about.

I'll leave it to others to examine other threads to see who started posting off-topic material.

I try to only introduce new material if it is on topic or related to subject in an earlier post. I will apologize for times I haven't lived up to that if you point one out. Plus, even if followed, that allows derails to be sustained (for instance, if a creationist posts an off-topic PRATT, and I post in response, then that whole discussion is off topic).

Maybe we can try to wrap up off-topic subjects (like beneficial mutation rates, Behe, and so on) and stay on topic?

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

Greg wrote:

Greg, you talk as if you don't understand that natural selection removes harmful mutations. Simply follow the model below to see this. Creationist have to repeatedly ignore basic logic - that harmful mutations are less likely to be passed on to the next generation - to assert that the deletrious mutations matter at all.

To see this, take a population of, say, 100,000 (which is really quite small, the population of deer just in Michigan is over 2,000,000 - 20 times as much). So the mutations will usually be on separate individuals, not on the same individual. Thus, the mutations will or will not be transmitted to the next generation according to the common sense observation of whether they help or hurt.

Check the data presented again.

 

[Knee V]

Hi verve, I replied in post #9 and none of the Creationists seemed to have an issue with it, perhaps there is common ground after all. Interestingly Paul in 1 Cor 2 also says "I decided to know nothing except a literal interpretation of Genesis and young earth creationism".... ah now wait that's my mistake he actually says "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified".

Thanks for the feedback.

Reality begins at the beginning. Though it seems completely valid to believe that drastically altering the beginning will have no effect on the New Testament so we should just run behind Jesus like a good christian and let the "TE" alone to implement Darwinism, it does. And as explained before, an allegory is not in the favor of materialism especially when dealing with historical elements.

As an example, the birth of Jesus through the means outlined (immaculate conception) really did happen. But we term it as a "virgin birth". "Virgin birth" here is an allegory, a term meant to encapsulate the immensity and complexity of spiritual or metaphysical occurrences being implemented. The term is meant to show the event from a physical standpoint looking in on it from that physical perspective. It's not as simple as saying "don't take the virgin birth literally". It is literally, a virgin birth, while at the same time it is allegorically a "virgin birth". Additionally, it is not as simple as "Goddidit" and material science is not at liberty to "interpret" virgin birth. Its only through familiarizing yourself with metaphysical concepts can you even scratch the surface and attempt to decode it. If Genesis is to be analyzed from an allegorical perspective, this is the model.

"Virgin birth" here may be seen as an allegory. Ie, it stands from a material perspective looking in on the event. Yet it does not mean a test-tube baby, artificial insemination or any other concept because of "look in algebra do you see God". In such carelessness you guys will eventually get to the New Testament or open up the gates for your more immersed compatriots, but we begin with Genesis. It follows the same pattern in regards to historicity and the use of material terms. If "virgin birth" is bad enough for materially inclined personnel, then in the interpretation, it only gets worse as there is even more spiritual components involved. The historicity is retained, and birth is retained as a birth as given with the "how god did it" being spiritually based.

Similarly, if "created" is bad enough for materially inclined personnel, it only gets worse when an interpretation is implemented with the "how god did it" being heavily based on the implementation of the metaphysical. Therefore it's out of the frying pan and into the fire. Plus there is no reason to alter that interpretation seeing that it is in accord with the scientific evidence showing that man is created as man.

One man said "literalism", and the rest of you jumped on the bandwagon without a second thought just because it services the Darwinian route. But it doesn't help you guys to go from God to even more influence from God. The driver should have at least told you that.

Thank you for sharing your point of view. It's good to know where you're coming from.

knee-v wrote:



Sorry, I don't have much to add in answer to your OP. I agree that it would be better if we stayed on topic more here on CF.

In the case of the thread I started, it got derailed more than once because creationists came on to post PRATTs that were unrelated to the OP, and it turned out they hadn't even bothered to check out the links in the OP that the thread was about.

I'll leave it to others to examine other threads to see who started posting off-topic material.

I try to only introduce new material if it is on topic or related to subject in an earlier post. I will apologize for times I haven't lived up to that if you point one out. Plus, even if followed, that allows derails to be sustained (for instance, if a creationist posts an off-topic PRATT, and I post in response, then that whole discussion is off topic).

Maybe we can try to wrap up off-topic subjects (like beneficial mutation rates, Behe, and so on) and stay on topic?

Papias

I appreciate the help with keeping this on topic.

 

[shernren]

(my emphasis)

This is really pretty funny stuff. Your friends need to explain to you that such ad hominem attacks fall into a category of logical fallacy, meaning they have no force whatever in logical argument, besides which they are rude and out of place in a forum such as this that calls itself Christian.

You need to learn that it was not an ad hominem attack, it was a fun little rhetorical device called apophasis. Nothing amuses me more than seeing a whole bunch of personal adjectives distract a poster from the real point of the post, which was simply this:

All I have to say is this: in your many posts on this forum you have not once personally presented a positive argument for creationism.

But let's set things straight. Did I make an ad hominem attack on you? I was just following in the grand biblical tradition:

One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. (Titus 1:12-13a, ESV)
​

What! The great Paul, caught committing a rhetorical fallacy? Of course not. The ad hominem fallacy is when a person says "shernren is a nasty insulting scoundrel, therefore anything he says about evolution is false." If an attack on my character is used to discredit a particular argument I am making, then that is a logical fallacy. But if someone should simply say "shernren is a nasty scoundrel" (as you have all but said), that is not a fallacious argument, because that is not an argument at all - that is simply a statement, which is either true or false.

Did I say you were petulant and immature? I sure did, and I am willing to stand by that kind of a statement, because it is well-documented in your own posts. It takes a lot of hubris for you on the one hand to accuse us TEs of making personal insults, and on the other hand to say things like this:

A virtual study in false premises.

... But, say, you have a cozy place here where you can all get together and feel good about bashing Creationists. And, in so doing, you seem to also claim that you are honoring God.

At last, a voice of sanity, heard above the cacophonous din. Thanks.

Wow! So we're a cacophonous din of insanity who do nothing but get together and feel good about bashing creationists. Thanks, kennesaw. Of course that wasn't a personal attack, right? When the other side says something nasty about you, it's a mean-spirited fallacious ad hominem jab, but when you say something nasty about the other side, of course it's just the naked truth.

So I think I am justified in saying the things I said about you. But did I dismiss your creationist arguments because of that? No. I have enjoyed serious conversation about the supposed flaws of evolution with all kinds of opponents: people who were erudite and conscientious, people who could barely spell, people who couldn't go two posts without calling me the spawn of the devil, people who thought I was nuts to accept evolution at all and then had "no problem" with the theology of a person to whom Adam was completely figurative.

An immature, petulant person may yet be able to bring down the great edifice of evolution. And I am fully aware of that possibility, which is why I stated what I did: that, even without mentioning the abrasive style of your posts, the simple fact remains that you have failed to present a single positive argument for creationism, and have spent the majority of your time here doing nothing but insulting evolutionists and then wondering why they care little for your arguments.

And so the central thesis of your post, that I was making an ad hominem attack against you, is demolished. But let's look at the rest of your post.

But I rejoice in such reactions, for two reasons. (1) I know that I must be touching some raw nerves when I get these kinds of reactions. (2) More importantly, Jesus said "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." Matt 5:11

(emphases added by me) The Cretans got called liars and beasts! The Judaizers were told to go the full length (heh heh) and castrate themselves! They were being insulted left right and center by the writers of the Bible! Surely they must have been doing something right.

I don't know why you're a fan of touching raw nerves. (And I don't know why you think you can go around poking raw nerves without ever getting yours poked in return.) But did Paul go around poking raw nerves? No; indeed:

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. (1Cor 10:31-33, ESV)
​

Oh, and about the "abrupt silence." I assume you allude to my hasty departure from the TE branch of this forum some days back. I left that area because I found it to be an environment inimical to any reasonable debate, being completely under the domination of evolution apologists, many of whom I found to be abrasively obnoxious and a few of whom behave as bullies. And you have the audacity to call me immature?

Yes, I bid adieu to that area of these forums, in the spirit of Mark 6:11.

"Abrasively obnoxious! Bullies! Inimical to any reasonable debate!" Kennesaw, are you reading what you write? Imagine if I or anyone here were to call you abrasively obnoxious - wouldn't you blow up in our faces? (Indeed, that is what you did in your reply to me, which demonstrates my point.) Surely you do not expect to call down rhetorical brimstone and fire on others without being singed yourself.

But let us look at this spirit of Mark 6:11:

And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them. (Mark 6:11, ESV)
​

Let's be clear about this. You can only "shake the dust off your feet" against an unbeliever. (Indeed, this is a lesson which a creationist here - a very hostile one at that - first taught me.)

In the context of the original passage it is clear that the disciples were being sent to preach the gospel to the unevangelized. For the disciples to be rejected was not a disagreement over some fine point of teaching; it was a rejection of the gospel, and even of the very person of Jesus Himself, and of the God who sent Him, as a semi-parallel passage shows:

“The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16, ESV)
​

So the shaking off of dust represents the refusal to further preach the gospel to someone who has actively rejected it. If you are implying that no TE who talked with you on the TE subforum was a Christian, then I would very much like you to come out and say it explicitly, because subtle charges of heresy are really unhelpful on such a charged forum.

But at least you did not leave simply because you couldn't handle the criticism of your ideas - you deserve at least that much credit.

Now I hoped that this area of the forum would be more hospitable and amenable to the views and opinions of Creationists, since the TE folk have such a stranglehold on the TE forum. I hoped that here I would be afforded a modicum of respect (I'm twice the age of many of you) and that I would not simply be subjected to ridicule and bombast. I hoped that here I would find at least a minimal level of Christian civility. If the overall tenor of the responses to my post are any indication, perhaps I hoped too much.

As I recall, you waded in, got a bunch of polite replies, called us all condescending and smug, and left in a huff. Were we disrespectful to you in the TE subforum? Really? The most we called you was "hardly qualified to comment on the merits of evolution", and I think that was a fair comment. I am hardly qualified to operate on someone's teeth, or to fix your car, or even to cut your hair. That is not an insult, that is simply the fact that I do not have an education in those areas of life.

Show me any other possibly disrespectful thing we said to you over the course of that thread.

(And by the way, what does age have to do with anything? Indeed, older men are to be treated as fathers (1 Tim 5:1) - but younger men as brothers, too, and respect must be reciprocal.)

Now, I could point out that of the two Scripture passages you quoted in your post, both were sorely misused, and then suggest that you study the rest of the Bible before you come back to talking about Genesis. (Which, by the way, you have hardly done.) But I think that would be overkill on an already overly-incisive post. I really don't enjoy writing hostile, frank posts like these - but sometimes they are necessary.