How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[Hieronymus]

Please explain what is intelligent about this design.

Not designed like that, and you know it.
This is what mutations can do (or ruin rather)
And on the other hand, humanity with all its knowledge and skills can not produce anything like it.
Therefore.... you know.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That's cognitive dissonance.

I don't think you understand the definition of 'cognitive dissonance'.

Any system without maintenance will degrade. What's so hard for you to grasp here?

A vehicle is designed by human beings. A living system is not designed. The diversity of life is explained by the overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection. Why is it so hard for you to grasp that the watchmaker argument is complete nonsense?

Not designed like that, and you know it.

Oh, I know life isn't designed. The diversity of life is the result of evolution. The point seemed to have flown directly over your heard.

This is what mutations can do (or ruin rather)

Then your God is a terrible designer. A genetic mutation is not always negative. Most are neutral and some are positive. Like the mutation in the CCR5 protein that can make someone more resistant to the HIV virus.

And on the other hand, humanity with all its knowledge and skills can not produce anything like it.

Inheritable genetic modification. We also know how to remove the genetic disease known as Huntington's if a couple wants to have a child but not risk passing down this disease to their children (There is a 50/50 chance of passing it down).

 

[Hieronymus]

I don't think you understand the definition of 'cognitive dissonance'.

Standard atheist denial....

A vehicle is designed by human beings. A living system is not designed.

Of course it is.
And it's a far far far better job than any stupid vehicle.
Life can even procreate autonomously.

The diversity of life is explained by the overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection.

Selection does not bring forth diversity, the evidence is not overwhelming either, not at all rather.
You just want it to be true.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that the watchmaker argument is complete nonsense?

Because it isn't.
Dawkins blundered in his (lack of) logic.
But hey, what do you expect from an emotionally charged inflated ego like him.

Oh, I know life isn't designed.

denial

The diversity of life is the result of evolution.

No.

The point seemed to have flown directly over your heard.

Has it now...

Then your God is a terrible designer.

No, allofhumanity can not do it, so He is better than all of humanity.
Itś a pity there is no maintanance, it's degrading, like any system left on its own.

A genetic mutation is not always negative.

It is over 99,99% of the time.

Most are neutral and some are positive.

Most are negative, some you don't notice immidiately.
Ask any medical doctor.

Like the mutation in the CCR5 protein that can make someone more resistant to the HIV virus.

Well, that's nice.
But what disadvantages does it come with?
I should study that myself, maybe i'll look into it.
It may turn out to be laced with bluff again...

But the obvious point is obvious:
Random mutations are corruptions of the data.
You expect miracles from data corruption.
And not just once, but countless times, resulting in what we see today, and without degradation.
This is because you deny the option of a designer and manufacturer.
So you have to believe in the preposterous fairytale of dead unconscious things capable of much much more than all of humanity combined. Hello?
That means you have to be a whole lot dumber than dead uncoscious things, because you can not do what they can do,even if there were a million of you working together.
Man is dabbling in nano-technology, while the dead unconscious things have mastered it already, according to the naturalistic fairytale.

Apparently the idea of pointless existence is so overly attractive, people are willing to shut down their logic and reason for it.

 

[Loudmouth]

It could also be natural variation.

No, it couldn't. If it was an inherited DNA sequence then it would be found in the parents. They weren't.

Some traits skip generations.

Some phenotypes skip generations. We are talking about genotypes, which are not the same thing.

It is impossible for a more distant ancestor to pass down a specific DNA sequence without having that DNA sequence in every generation. There isn't some magic mechanism that takes DNA from a grandparent and gives it to a grandchild without the parent having that DNA sequence in between.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, that's what you want to think.

And yet another post without those probabilities you claim to have.

Like evolution you mean?

I can produce those probabilities, if you are asking for them.

Chimps and humans are separate by 40 million mutations. If we use some conservative numbers, we can see if such a divergence is possible. We will be using a generation time of 25 years, 50 mutations per individual per generation, a steady population of 100,000, and 5 million years since common ancestry.

With those numbers we have 50 million mutations per generation across 100,000 individuals. In 5 million years, there are 200,000 generations with a generation time of 25 years. 200,000 generations with 50 million mutations per generation is 1 trillion mutations total.

Out of the 1 trillion mutations that did occur, there were only 40 million that were kept, or just 0.004% of the total mutations.

Seems like evolution is very probable.

 

[Loudmouth]

Mutations are mistakes.

Why do you think chimps and humans look different? Is it due to a difference in DNA?

Genes are made with a high degree
of variability. Tall, short, thin, wide, it's all part of the original
design.

According to you, the human population started with two people. This means that there were at most 4 alleles per gene. We see thousands of alleles for some genes in the current human population. Where did those alleles come from?

 

[Hieronymus]

Not even in a naturalistic worldview is it probable.

 

[Hieronymus]

Why do you think chimps and humans look different? Is it due to a difference in DNA?

Why do vehicles look different?

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course it is.
And it's a far far far better job than any stupid vehicle.

Why don't cars fall into a nested hierarchy?

Itś a pity there is no maintanance, it's degrading, like any system left on its own.

Humans differ from chimps by 40 million mutations. Are we degraded chimps?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do vehicles look different?

Why don't they fall into a nested hierarchy?

Also, answer the question.

Why do humans and chimps look different from each other?

 

[Loudmouth]

Not even in a naturalistic worldview is it probable.

You can't even address the math?

 

[Hieronymus]

Why don't they fall into a nested hierarchy?

I'm not familiar with that term.
Hoe zou het in het Nederlands heten?
you see...

You can't even address the math?

You mean all the meager unlikely chances multiplied?
It tells me it's impossible.

Also, answer the question.

Why do humans and chimps look different from each other?

Because they were made different, like vehicles.
Vehicles also share the same parts though, and may come from the same designer and manufacturer.
We're lucky they don't procreate.
Imagine the traffic jams...

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not familiar with that term.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_05

The nested hierarchy is one of the most important observations in biology. If you are going to be debating biology, you should know what a nested hierarchy is.

You mean all the meager unlikely chances multiplied?

You haven't produce a single unlikely chance.

Because they were made different, like vehicles.

Is that how humans and chimps are made, in factories?

Why do humans give birth to children who look human and chimps give birth to children who look like chimps? What is the mechanism that produces this observation?

Vehicles also share the same parts though, and may come from the same designer and manufacturer.

Vehicles do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Life does. It is the nested hierarchy that evidences evolution, not the simple observation that life shares features.

 

[Hieronymus]

You haven't produce a single unlikely chance.

The chance of a mutation being beneficial is less than 0.01%

 

[RickG]

The chance of a mutation being beneficial is less than 0.01%

Are offspring exact copies of their parents?

 

[Loudmouth]

The chance of a mutation being beneficial is less than 0.01%

Since 0.004% of the mutations that did happen were actually kept, then this isn't a problem. The rate of beneficial mutations is more than high enough.

Added in edit:

For a human population of 5 billion, that is 250 billion mutations total. If 0.01% are beneficial, then there are 25 million beneficial mutations in the current human population.

 

[Reasoning]

I'm not familiar with that term.
Hoe zou het in het Nederlands heten?
you see...

Dat is 'de stamboom' die alle soorten aan elkaar linkt You're welcome.

The theory of evolution beautifully describes how something complex can come from something simple, with natural selection as its driving force. As loudmouth says, only a very tiny bit of mutations that are kept are all that's needed, together with enormous amounts of time. Nothing we see in the natural world implies any design, how it all works is meticulously explained by Darwin and his successors in the past 150 years. There is really no doubt about it any more.

If only creationist would open their eyes for the beauty that evolution is. 'The greatest show on earth' is a perfect way of calling it, as Richard Dawkins did in his book with the same title. A visit to a good Natural History museum, and some serious and objective studying into the topic should convince anyone that still doesn't get it. The evidence is abundant, there is no question. We are cousins of chimps, and more distant cousins of tuna fish. Isn't that just awesome?

 

[Loudmouth]

replied to myself. feel free to delete.

 

[Hieronymus]

Dat is 'de stamboom' die alle soorten aan elkaar linkt You're welcome.

Dank je wel !
It's another naturalist conjecture then.
It's been refuted too.

The theory of evolution beautifully describes how something complex can come from something simple, with natural selection as its driving force.

Without mutations there would be nothing to select, so mutation is what brings the changes.
Selection usually kills off mutations, quite immediately or eventually.
But now i have this experiment, where i have several simple pieces of working software.
Then i randomly corrupt the data, by sloppy copying.
But none of the programs upgraded by this process.
Most of them don't run anymore, so i stopped copying them.
A few still run, but with serious problems.
What did i do wrong?
Why didn't Highway turn into GTA?

As loudmouth says, only a very tiny bit of mutations that are kept are all that's needed, together with enormous amounts of time.

Exactly. And that's why naturalistic popular science NEEDS bazillions of years.
But they don't tell you about the stuff that contradicts that assumption.
(and neither will i, because i would have to look things up.... sorry...)

Nothing we see in the natural world implies any design,

That's just a ridiculous statement.
Humanity even copies design found in nature.
In living nature we find tonnes of purposeful traits, like ALL organs, which are efficient and genius (smarter than mankind anyway).

how it all works is meticulously explained by Darwin

Darwin???
He didn't even know about DNA.

and his successors in the past 150 years. There is really no doubt about it any more.

.....

If only creationist would open their eyes for .....etcetera......

I'm stooped....

 

[Loudmouth]

Without mutations there would be nothing to select, so mutation is what brings the changes.

And we already know that mutations occur, even in humans.

Selection usually kills off mutations, quite immediately or eventually.

You haven't produced a single piece of evidence to back up this claim.

But now i have this experiment, where i have several simple pieces of working software.
Then i randomly corrupt the data, by sloppy copying.
But none of the programs upgraded by this process.

We are talking about DNA, not software.

Exactly. And that's why naturalistic popular science NEEDS bazillions of years.
But they don't tell you about the stuff that contradicts that assumption.

Like what?

Humanity even copies design found in nature.

Species genetically modified by humans often violate the nested hierarchy. Once again, we find that a nested hierarchy is not predicted by design, and is in fact not expected from design.

In living nature we find tonnes of purposeful traits, like ALL organs, which are efficient and genius (smarter than mankind anyway).Darwin???
He didn't even know about DNA......I'm stooped....

Where did you demonstrate that they were purposefully designed?