Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

Status
Not open for further replies.

As I was saying

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2015
1,258
200
82
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟2,608.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Let's try a blunt approach here:

NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS EVER PROVEN! Again,NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS EVER PROVEN!There - does that make a difference at all?The fossil record provides evidence for the theory of evolution, it does not "prove" it, because................NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS EVER PROVEN!

Let's try the blunt approach. According to evolutionists, fossil prove the theory of evolution.

And....if no scientific theory is ever proven, why do atheists keep telling us that they know everything and we know nothing?

And...if no scientific theory is ever proven, why is it that scientists hailed the Piltdown Man as the missing link for 50 years. If no theory is ever proven, they could not say "this is the missing link." All they could do is conjecture.
 
Upvote 0

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
95
✟21,415.00
Faith
Atheist
And did you notice that it says "The fossil record refers to the collection of physical and research evidence that paleontologists and geologists have used to prove the veracity of evolutionary theory.

There is that dreaded word again...prove the veracity of evolutionary theory.

Learn the difference.

Whomever made that statement ( I notice you don't give us a citation) is as incorrect as you are. Fossils provide evidence, as the bulk of that piece attests. They do not provide 'proof' of anything.
 
Upvote 0

As I was saying

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2015
1,258
200
82
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟2,608.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Whomever made that statement ( I notice you don't give us a citation) is as incorrect as you are. Fossils provide evidence, as the bulk of that piece attests. They do not provide 'proof' of anything.

More shifting sands of atheism. You seem to invent things as you go along. So now evidence is not proof. So tell me, why did atheists tell us that the Piltdown Man was proof of the missing link?

So if evidence is not proof and science proves nothing, you will have to forgive me if I don't believe your fairy stories.
 
Upvote 0

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
95
✟21,415.00
Faith
Atheist
Let's try the blunt approach. According to evolutionists, fossil prove the theory of evolution.

And....if no scientific theory is ever proven, why do atheists keep telling us that they know everything and we know nothing?

And...if no scientific theory is ever proven, why is it that scientists hailed the Piltdown Man as the missing link for 50 years. If no theory is ever proven, they could not say "this is the missing link." All they could do is conjecture.

1. Name the 'evolutionists' that make those statements.
2. Name the atheists that tell you about knowing.
3. How does uncovering a fraud amount to a 'proven' theory?

You really do sound very desperate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Armoured
Upvote 0

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
95
✟21,415.00
Faith
Atheist
more shifting sands of atheism. You seem to invent things as you go along. So now evidence is not proof. So tell me, why did atheists tell us that the Piltdown Man was proof of the missing link?

Shifting sands? Why will you not cite your sources?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Armoured
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
That must mean that science does not deal in facts, only theories. Again, it is so ridiculous that so many atheists demand they are right and everyone else is wrong. If what they are talking about does not deal in facts, how do they know? All they can say is it is assumed, but they don't. Most of the time they say it is proven.

Like the fossil record they claim it proves evolution but if science doesn't deal in facts, how can it prove evolution?
No one says it "proves" evolution. Stop arguing the dictionary. Words describe reality, not dictate it.
 
Upvote 0

As I was saying

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2015
1,258
200
82
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟2,608.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
1. Name the 'evolutionists' that make those statements.
2. Name the atheists that tell you about knowing.
3. How does uncovering a fraud amount to a 'proven' theory? You really do sound very desperate.

And as a purported apologist for evolution you really sound completely out of your depth. For 50 years it was hailed a fact, not a fraud. If you didn't know that you are behind the eight ball when it comes to the claims of atheists and evolutionaries.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
And as a purported apologist for evolution you really sound completely out of your depth. For 50 years it was hailed a fact, not a fraud. If you didn't know that you are behind the eight ball when it comes to the claims of atheists and evolutionaries.
If this was true, asking you for a citation doesn't seem that onerous.
 
Upvote 0

As I was saying

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2015
1,258
200
82
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟2,608.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No one says it "proves" evolution. Stop arguing the dictionary. Words describe reality, not dictate it.


No one? Look mate, sorry to burst your bubble but I was in England when the Piltdown Man was hailed as the missing link and was believed to be for 50 years. A friend of mine lived just down the road from the site where it was found so it was splashed across the local papers so please don't tell me me that no one says it proves evolution.
 
Upvote 0

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
95
✟21,415.00
Faith
Atheist
And as a purported apologist for evolution you really sound completely out of your depth. For 50 years it was hailed a fact, not a fraud. If you didn't know that you are behind the eight ball when it comes to the claims of atheists and evolutionaries.

Yet you can't provide a single name. It seems like Piltdown isn't the only fraud in this discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Armoured
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
No one? Look mate, sorry to burst your bubble but I was in England when the Piltdown Man was hailed as the missing link and was believed to be for 50 years. A friend of mine lived just down the road from the site where it was found so it was splashed across the local papers so please don't tell me me that no one says it proves evolution.
I'll let you in on a little secret... newspapers are not scientific journals, nor written by scientifically literate people.
 
Upvote 0

As I was saying

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2015
1,258
200
82
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟2,608.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
a flat earth has been discredited. an unmoving earth has been discredited. genesis has been discredited. exodus has been discredited and it has nothing to do with evolution. And the walls came tumbling down.
Your words.

Genesis has been discredited? By whom. Atheists. Don't make me laugh. The only people that discredit it are those who are afraid of the truth and can't handle it.
 
Upvote 0

As I was saying

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2015
1,258
200
82
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟2,608.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Ayala, Francisco
2006 Darwin and Intelligent Design Minneapolis: Fortress Press

Ayala, Francisco
2007 Darwin’s Gift: To Science and Religion (Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press- National Academies Press)

Collins, Francis S.
2006 The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief New York Free Press- Simon and Schuster

Frye, Roland Mushat (editor)
1983 "Is God a Creationist?: The Religious Case Against Creation-Science" New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, Inc.

Giberson, Karl W.
2008 “Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and believe in evolution” New York: HarperCollins

Godfry, Stephen J. and Christopher R. Smith
2005 "Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology, and Biblical Interpretation." Toronto: Clements Publishing.

Haught, John F.
2001 “Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution” New York: Paulist Press Haught is a Catholic theologian who testified as a plaintiff expert in the Dover, Pa “Intelligent Design” trial.

Hyers, Conrad
1984 “The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science” Atlanta: John Knox Press (Conrad Hyers has served as Professor of the History of Religion and Chair of the Department of Religion at both Beloit College and at Gustavus Adolphus College. He is also an ordained Presbyterian minister)

Kitcher, Phillip
2007 “Living With Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Life” Oxford University Press

Miller, Keith B. (editor)
2003 “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing

Ken Miller
1999 "Finding Darwin's God" New York: HarperCollins

___
2008 “Only a Theory” New York: Viking Press

Roberts, Michael
2008 "Evangelicals and Science" Greenwood Press

Towne, Margaret Gray
2003 "Honest to Genesis: A Biblical & Scientific Challenge to Creationism" Baltimore: PublishAmerica"

Walton, John H.
2009 “The Lost World of Genesis One: ancient cosmology and the origins” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press

Young, Davis A.
1995 “The Biblical Flood: A case study of the Church’s Response to extrabiblical evidence” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Paternoster Press

Young, Davis A., Ralf F. Stearley
2008 "The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth" Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press


These are just the Christians.

Ayala. Not a christian. A dominican priest for one year. That doesn't make you a christian.

Collins, yes and he gives the glory to God which you atheists hate doing.

Frye a presbyterian elder and I know plenty of those who have not been christians.

Giberson. No mention of him being a christian on wikipedia although I did notice that he spoke against evolution.

Godfry Stephen. There is nothing about him on the internet.

Haught. Judging by all the books he has written he as rubbished evolution.

Hyers. Nothing in his bio on Wikipedia that says he supported evolution.

I guess if I keep going I will find more falsifications, lies and desperate claims to try and maintain a semblance of knowing what you are talking about.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Ayala. Not a christian. A dominican priest for one year. That doesn't make you a christian.

Collins, yes and he gives the glory to God which you atheists hate doing.

Frye a presbyterian elder and I know plenty of those who have not been christians.

Giberson. No mention of him being a christian on wikipedia although I did notice that he spoke against evolution.

Godfry Stephen. There is nothing about him on the internet.

Haught. Judging by all the books he has written he as rubbished evolution.

Hyers. Nothing in his bio on Wikipedia that says he supported evolution.

I guess if I keep going I will find more falsifications, lies and desperate claims to try and maintain a semblance of knowing what you are talking about.
Holy no true Scotsman, Batman!
 
Upvote 0

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
95
✟21,415.00
Faith
Atheist
Gosh, you atheists are as thick as two short planks. I think half the time you say what you say because you like the sound of your voice and the best you can do is shoot from the lip. if that fact offends you then report me to the moderator. That will confirm everything I have said.

Now, to even things up a bit can you site anywhere from 50 years ago that scientists said science does not deal in facts?

Still no names of the people YOU say made those claims? How surprising.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Armoured
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
So what does it say apart from the claim of some atheists that it says whatever you want it to say and bearing in mind that no atheist speaks for another (so I am told)?
Why do you ask me - just to later file it under "the claim of some atheists that it says whatever you want it to say and bearing in mind that no atheist speaks for another (so I am told)"?
Do you not have access to books and such?
 
Upvote 0

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
95
✟21,415.00
Faith
Atheist
Oh brother you are so dim, it is unbelievable. The Piltdown Man is all over the net so go and look up what you want to find as it is no use me telling you because you will say I am a liar or falsifying things so if you look it up and see it for yourself you don't have to take my word for it because like all atheists you never believe anyone unless they believe the same thing as you do.

I mean, why ask someone for evidence when you don't accept a word they say? Not logic young man, not logic.

Here are YOUR words:

According to evolutionists, fossil prove the theory of evolution.

Yet you cannot name one evolutionist that makes such a claim. Not a single one.

Oh, and Piltdown? I know it quite well. Because, when I was a young man, it was covered extensively for a time. Now, do you know who it was that eventually uncovered the fraud? A priest perhaps? A parson? A religious fundamentalist?

No. The fraud was discovered by scientists! Doing the work that scientists do!
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Hall-Hartl E. coli experiment. In a 1974 paper Barry Hall and Daniel Hartl identified a gene in the bacterium E. coli that is responsible for metabolizing lactose, using a complicated three-part process. They removed this gene, and then permitted the bacteria to multiply in a stressed environment containing lactose. Within 24 hours the bacteria had evolved a capability to utilize lactose, by means of a similar but distinct three-part biochemical pathway, involving two mutated genes [Hall1974; Miller1999, pg. 145-147]. Biologist Douglas Futumya described this discovery as follows: "One could not wish for a better demonstration of the neo-Darwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations." [Futumya1986]. Biologist Kenneth Miller points out that not only is it a valid example of evolutionary novelty, it is also an example of a multi-part biochemical system that intelligent design writer Michael Behe has insisted could not be produced by natural evolution [Miller2005]. See also the discussion of Complexity.
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/novelty.php

Reality beats anyone's reasoning. And those papers you cited don't say what you seem to think they say.

OK sorry about the delay. The tests you are referring to do not prove Darwinian evolution. There have been tests that are similar and there have been revisions of the findings. One of those was the ability for bacteria to metabolize citrus. This test was done many years ago and we have so much more evidence since then. In fact I am surprised you use such an old reference as the discoveries in evolution have been numerous since then which make those findings outdated.

There are some unknown factors involved with this that make it hard to draw specific conclusions. There are other factors which show that what has been concluded may be wrong as well. Things such as the tests being done under controlled conditions which are different to the natural environment. Bacteria that undergo these changes in a lab don’t compete well and survive in the wild. Evidence shows that the ability for the bacteria to metabolize lactose, citrus or become antibiotic resistant is already there in the genetics and that it was a loss of info that enabled it the bacteria to do this. That to make the changes there was also a fitness cost that would have a detrimental result overall. That the three mutations that were supposedly made did not happen randomly. Those certain conditions had to be made artificially for them to happen.

Those who disagree with what Darwinian evolution claims don’t disagree that evolution takes place. They just disagree with the amount and type of evolution that some attach to Darwinian evolution. Creatures have the ability to make changes within their species especially micro organisms like bacteria. They adapt to the changing environment. Otherwise they would quickly die. Design allows for this and it’s included in all living things. Bacteria also have an amazing ability for HGT which allows them to gain genetic material from other organisms they share their environments with. That gives them an ability to grow and change quickly.

As stated there are new discoveries all the time. One view is that what was produced was not entirely from Darwinian evolution and that the Bacteria seem to have an ability to ignite genetic activity when under stress. This triggers mutations to start and therefore producing the possibility to adapt with changing environments. This may also allow pre existing or set paths to be taken genetically so that creatures can gain genetic variety and change with their environments. But this would be a rigid flexibility of genetic variation within certain limits as the evidence shows. This would indicate a more goal directed process which has set limits and be more in line with design with pre existing mechanisms and material.

The detail for explaining the possible alternative processes for the changes coming from preexisting genetics is complicated and I don’t completely understand them. But from what I can understand there are many other possible reasons why bacteria have the ability to express changes to adapt to different conditions besides evolution. The changes that have been described in these tests are adaptations to environment under stress. As stated by hall this would be a problem for the tests and for Darwinian evolution.

One of the implications of the tests is that it shows mutations from adaptations to environments and those mutations are directed in this sense. This is different to what evolution claims about how it works.

Adaptive mutation provoked controversy about whether mutagenesis mechanisms exist that direct mutation preferentially to a selected gene, in a Lamarckian manner.

If, indeed, adaptive mutations are “directed” by environmental conditions, a glaring problem would be posed to any phylogenetic reconstruction that is dependent on DNA sequence differences. Hall comments,

As what has been said before with these kinds of tests and changes are not truly what evolution claims, No new genetic information has been added. Enzymes are very specific and these mutational changes are just taking that specificity away to add some change. But when that specificity is taken away it is changing the original state that was already best. So there will be a cost as well in the end. Evolution claims the opposite. It claims that complex changes can add information and fitness and make a creature better. Mutations can do all sorts of changes but most are a cost to fitness with the extreme end being things like cancer. Even if a small change could be positive to create all the variety and complexity we see would take more time than the earth has been in existence.

I will post the evidence for this in another post, thanks Steve.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Hall-Hartl E. coli experiment. In a 1974 paper Barry Hall and Daniel Hartl identified a gene in the bacterium E. coli that is responsible for metabolizing lactose, using a complicated three-part process. They removed this gene, and then permitted the bacteria to multiply in a stressed environment containing lactose. Within 24 hours the bacteria had evolved a capability to utilize lactose, by means of a similar but distinct three-part biochemical pathway, involving two mutated genes [Hall1974; Miller1999, pg. 145-147]. Biologist Douglas Futumya described this discovery as follows: "One could not wish for a better demonstration of the neo-Darwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations." [Futumya1986]. Biologist Kenneth Miller points out that not only is it a valid example of evolutionary novelty, it is also an example of a multi-part biochemical system that intelligent design writer Michael Behe has insisted could not be produced by natural evolution [Miller2005]. See also the discussion of Complexity.
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/novelty.php

Reality beats anyone's reasoning. And those papers you cited don't say what you seem to think they say.
This is the evidence to go with my previous post.
Here are some other possibilities they haven’t taken into consideration.

Hall’s work needs critical evaluation. Mutations in the Ebg system are clearly not an example of evolution but mutation and natural selection allowing for adaptation to the environment. Several possibilities for the function of the Ebg system are suggested. In addition, there is an assessment of the likelihood of these mutations in the ebg operon occurring in a natural setting. An implication of this research is an understanding that adaptive mutation makes “limited” changes which severely restrict its use as a mechanism for evolution.

How is Dr. Miller defining evolution? Adaptive mutagenesis of the Ebg system is not creating a new system, nor does it even impart E. coli with a new phenotype. Instead, the mutations, combined with selection, work on pre-existing genetic material. The wild-type ebg ß-gal already possessed the ability to catabolize lactose. The mutations merely restored the Lac+ phenotype that the mutant strain of E. coli had previously lost by a deletion of lacZ. In addition, mutations at 92 and/or 977 in ebgA simply allow the ebg ß-gal system to utilize lactose better.

Hall’s work with the Ebg system is not an example of the evolution of a new system or even a new phenotype. Rather the process of adaptive mutagenesis (through mutation and natural selection) has allowed the bacteria to make a minimal number of changes in pre-existing systems to regain a previously lost function in order to adapt to adverse environmental conditions. More time and more beneficial mutations as achieved by adaptive mutagenesis still do not result in evolution, merely adaptation.

Another problem for adaptive mutagenesis as a mechanism for evolution is the net overall loss of functional systems. As discussed in the appendix, the proposed hypermutable state of bacteria under non-lethal selection leads to genome-wide mutations.

Although these cells possessed beneficial mutations which allowed them to utilize lactose, they also possessed deleterious mutations that resulted in the loss of the ability to utilize xylose or maltose. Hall also found auxotrophic mutations among Trp+ revertants. Mutations in enzymes typically alter their substrate specificity or interfere with their ability to interact with their natural substrate.

So if the organism is in the wild and continues to evolve it will eventually find it harder to survive because it will have a fitness cost overall.

As papers regarding the functionality of pseudogenes have only recently been published (last five years), it is possible that ebgA is a pseduogene with an unknown regulatory function.

Another possibility is that the ebg operon represents a functionally redundant backup system for the lac operon.

Possibly ebgA serves as a backup gene for several essential genes and the most flexibility within the system is achieved by altering ebgA in accordance with the particular essential gene that has been inactivated. Further support of the idea that the ebg operon is a backup system is implicated by the findings that adaptive mutagenesis of ebgR is regulated.

Early findings by Hall and Foster/Cairns seemed to indicate that the only mutations that were occurring were those specific for dealing with the selective pressure that the bacteria were under. This would seem to contradict the randomness of mutations (or a mutation rate independent of the environment) required by Neo-Darwinian philosophy.

Although these cells possessed beneficial mutations which allowed them to utilize lactose, they also possessed deleterious mutations that resulted in the loss of the ability to utilize xylose or maltose. Hall also found auxotrophic mutations among Trp+ revertants. It is not known if the mutations at 92 and 977 in ebgA affect the natural function of the Ebg system since its natural function is unknown. It is likely that these mutations do affect the natural function of ebg ß-gal since they occur in the proposed active site. Mutations in enzymes typically alter their substrate specificity or interfere with their ability to interact with their natural substrate.

Hall, although not skeptical of evolution in general, does seem to conclude that his work on the Ebg system is not reflective of the experimental test or laboratory verification of evolution that Miller suggests. In a recent paper he recounted the history of his research on the Ebg system. Hall writes,

As a fresh young postdoc in 1972, I was pretty disdainful of evolutionary biology, dismissing it as just-so stories backed up by internally consistent, but experimentally untestable hypotheses. Underlying all of those questions was the big question: what did we have to know in order to predict both the evolutionary potential of an organism for a new gene function and the evolutionary potential of any particular ancestral gene?

Well, we pretty much lost sight of that question over the years of studying Ebg. We had started out wanting to be able to predict evolution but ended up, much like classical evolutionists, simply explaining what we had seen. Sure we had watched the events occur in the laboratory, but no effort to predict outcomes in advance had been attempted.
https://answersingenesis.org/geneti...of-barry-halls-research-of-e-coli-ebg-operon/

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
This paper talks about pre existing genetic info being turned on and activated rather than new genetic material evolving.
A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
I propose that phylogeny took place in a manner similar to that of ontogeny by the derepression of preformed genomic information which was expressed through release from latency (derepression) by the restructuring of existing chromosomal information (position effects). Both indirect and direct evidence is presented in support of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15889345

This is a paper by a prominent biologist in the journal in the journal of the US National Academy of Science. He acknowledges the simultaneous evolution of all components of a system are implausible.
Evolutionary layering and the limits to cellular perfection
Here, it is argued that random genetic drift can impose a strong barrier to the advancement of molecular refinements by adaptive processes.
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/46/18851
This paper below found evidence indicating that despite high mutation rates and generous assumptions favoring a Darwinian process, molecular adaptations requiring more than six mutations before yielding any advantage would be extremely unlikely to arise in the history of the Earth.
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

These papers talks about how adaptive evolution cannot produce all the changes we see in living things and that there is evidence of other processes that are more responsible such as HGT.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full
The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n10/abs/nrg2192.html
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19213802
Lastly this paper talks about the fitness cost of mutations, even beneficial ones.
Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population
We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness,
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

That should just about cover all angles.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ecco

Poster
Sep 4, 2015
2,011
544
Florida
✟5,011.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You are quite right saying scientists never prove anything.
More and more - week after week - discoveries are being made that contradicts their claims
They need to go back to the drawing board and that is - GOD'S DRAWING BOARD
Indeed. Unproven things that have been contradicted like Germ Theory. During the time of the bubonic plague in Europe, people prayed to God. It didn't help.


Ayway, you made the claim, perhaps you can name some.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.