"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved." [moved]

[-57]

Still not answering the questions. How many mutations had to occur in each generation of your ancestors? How many generations has it been since Adam, roughly speaking?


As I told you before, I've already answered this question twice, giving you a specific answer, my reasoning and (in one of the threads) references. There's a nice search function here if you want to read my answers again.

Roughly speaking....110 generations to 400 generations.

 

[bhsmte]

Highly entertaining!

 

[USincognito]

Rather a common factory.

A
Your fallacy is - Ad hoc.

 

[sfs]

Roughly speaking....110 generations to 400 generations.

Okay, so if you had 400 generations of ancestors, . . . Let's just take the low frequency mutations, since they couldn't have been present in Adam and Eve, and ignore the really rare ones, since they could have occurred after the population got large. Let's say those that are between 1% and 10% in the modern population. You're carrying roughly half a million genetic variants in that frequency range. Now remember, these had to occur while the population was still really small -- less than a few hundred, and that certainly wasn't true at any time in recorded history, say for the last 4500 years (180 generations). That leave 220 generations, meaning your ancestors were accumulating ~2000 mutations per generation. That's about 40 times higher than the actual human mutation rate, and would undoubtedly be lethal. So no, that doesn't seem very likely. (In reality, the bulk of higher frequency variants would also have to be the result of mutations, meaning the actual mutation would have to have been more like 5000 mutations per generation. And how did the population jump from a few hundred to tens of millions overnight, anyway?)

There's a reason professional creationists avoid ever actually explaining any genetic data.

 

[USincognito]

Why does creation from nothing mean that it shouldn't explain anything? For example, the creation of humans from nothing (or from dust) as a single pair a few thousand years ago would be a great explanation for why humans have strikingly low genetic diversity and a shortage of low frequency genetic variants -- because that (especially the second one) is what we would expect to see if recent special creation were true. The problem is, of course, that we don't see those things.

Plus another genetic bottleneck ~2000 years later.

 

[USincognito]

The problem is that when Atheist observe nature going about its complex organized business to them it simply proves that nature is quite capable of winging it on its own while to a believer in a creator it shouts design. In short, the atheist mind seems totally incapable of making the required inductive leap from general to specific that most of mankind effortlessly manages to make.

I admire your faith in evolutionism. You can't prove or demonstrate it....sheer faith.

Wow. Just wow. If you couldn't understand that Radrook does not accept evolution, then no wonder all the science stuff is going over your head.

 

[USincognito]

Clearly shown? By whom and what science? The "theory of evolution" nonsense? Sorry, but complex organisms do not evolve from nothing by themselves, regardless of how much time you allow.

Of course they don't. But since there is no proposition of "nothing" in evolution, your comment doesn't actually address evolution and it little more than a straw man.

Species adapt but do not "evolve" into an entirely new species.

Please give us a hypothetical example of what you mean by "an entirely new species". There are way to many Creationists out there who do not actually understand evolution and think it means something like a horse evolving into a cow or an iguana hatching a clutch of puppies when those things would actually falsify evolution.

By your reasoning, the city of New York that we see today could build itself without any human action, and that's just child's play compared to the complexity of all life on earth and the systems that support it. Please go!

When buildings start reproducing an passing along genetic material with mutations to offspring you might have an analogous comparison. Since they don't, however, your analogy fails.

 

[USincognito]

Dogs are not evolving.

With the exception of the selection pressure being artificial, the process by which dogs came about is not really all that different.

Do you even understand the definition of evolving?

I'm sure TQR does, and I know I do. Do you? Could you provide us with a brief definition in your own words?

Maybe dogs will "evolve" and lose their legs like snakes did, too.

Maybe, but only if there were not a negative selective pressure. Limb loss hasn't only happened in snakes, but in caecilians and the hind legs of whales. The genetic basis for that loss is understood.

Your lack of evidence is very telling.

Your lack of awareness of the evidence for evolution does not mean it does not exist.
(Please note this is Google Scholar, not regular Google.)
Human evolution - 4.1 million hits.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=human+evolution&btnG=&as_sdt=1,31&as_sdtp=
Dog evolution - 730,000 hits.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=dog+evolution&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,31
Snake evolution - 265,000 hits.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=snake+evolution&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,31
Whale evolution - 99,800 hits.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=whale+evolution&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,31
Caecilian evolution - 5,900 hits.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=caecilian+evolution&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,31

 

[USincognito]

You can ignore post 3 all you want.

The same way you're ignoring Post #215 and #216?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Your petty monkey insult was ignored,

No it wasn't, you just did the equivalent of telling me it wasn't. Funny stuff. And it wasn't my intention to insult the monkeys, but I can see how you read it as such.

 

[USincognito]

Survival of a species from a mutation(which you say is random) does not get us from apes to humans.

Humans are apes. And please, do go on. Tell us how mutations do not get us from our common ancestor with our fellow apes to us.

Oh, not the fossils and carbon-dating nonsense again... thought up by a bunch of knuckleheads that want to push the evolution theory. I thought it was common knowledge that carbon-dating is only accurate back to a couple of thousand years?

I don't see where @JonFromMinnesota mentioned radiocarbon dating. Perhaps you could highlight were he did so? That said, the man who developed radiocarbon dating did so to assist anthropology and paleontology, not evolution. He also won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for doing so and worked on the Manhattan Project.

What are your credentials that put you in a postion to refer to him as a "knucklehead"?

 

[USincognito]

I assume you have received medical care from a doctor before. Have you ever asked them, if they agree with evolution and what role it has played in modern medicine?

There are many medical doctors who don't accept evolutionism.

For example...
Earlier this month, Dr. Ben Carson announced that he’s running for president. Carson was previously the head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. He also rejects the theory of evolution. Here at Pacific Standard, his stance made us wonder: How can doctors deny evolution?
Rest of article if you desire to read it.

He didn't ask you to find a doctor who did not accept evolution. He asked you if you asked your doctor. Why do Creationists have such a hard time answering a simple question?

 

[USincognito]

Next thing you know, they'll want to call in the Hardly Boys to solve the case and try to prove we evolved from fossils they find in rocks and coal. Never mind what the book of Genesis says. God was just being allegorical. He really didn't create man as a separately unique species. My great x 1,000,000,000,000,000th ancestor was some single-celled organism that eventually evolved into a poo-slinging ape, from which evolved man.

You go on and on and on about fossil records and such, when all they have is a theory, and a very poor one. You know, the scientists proposing this trash remind me of some of the stupid crackpot scientists on the show called Ancient Aliens that usually airs on the History Channel. They present the material very convincingly, but then you find that it is all built on a bunch of lies. They should start a spinoff show and call it "Ancient Evolution", and say at the start of every other sentence in the show, "Ancient Evolution Theorists believe, claim, etc.".

I see a lot of yap flapping, but very little addressing of evidence. Here, let's try this. Is this skull "fully ape" or "fully human" and why do you conclude as you do?

 

[USincognito]

Wow, great argument bro. Mt St Helens provided us with proof for that.

Yes, Mount Saint Helens did provide "proof" that a Flood cannot turn sea shells and other things into rock in a single year.

 

[USincognito]

Heh, Harvard. The last time it came up in a discussion with the nursing faculty a few years ago, I heard a good portion of their Medical graduates ended up in admin positions so they wouldn't end up harming/killing patients. Its still a good college, but too much money is involved there.

What does this hearsay and rumor mongering have to do with the fact that evolution plays an important role in biomedical studies?

 

[USincognito]

Haven't you ever heard about the world wide flood? It's in the bible.

Wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were buried rapidly and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime? Of course, and that’s exactly what we find. Furthermore, even though the catastrophic geologic activity of the Flood would have waned in the immediate post-Flood period, ongoing mini-catastrophes would still have produced localized fossil deposits. rest of article

You know what wouldn't expect to find? Wait, why am I asking.. of course you don't.

Feel free to explain, in your own words, why we find the following in the supposed "Flood strata".
------------------------------
How does a Flood explain subaerial igneous intrusions?
How does a Flood address all the heat that would be produced by the formation of limestone?
How does the Flood explain trace fossils?
How does the Flood explain faunal succession?
How does the Flood explain 60,000 varve layers in Lake Suigetsu and hundreds of thousands of layers in ice cores?
How does the Flood explain glacial erosion and deposits?
How does Flood explain eolian deposits and paleosols?
How does the Flood explain meanders like Horseshoe bend?
How does the Flood explain the different states of erosion exhibited by different mountain ranges?
How does the Flood explain batholiths?
How does the Flood explain 23,0000 years worth of Helium3 buildup on rocks in the Atacama desert?
Why did RATE admit there was 500,000,000 years worth of radioactive decay in the geological record?

 

[USincognito]

This is really not a reasonable response. Perhaps because there were no seashells there?

And yet you claimed that Mount Saint Helens provided "proof" that seashells could be turned into stone in a year.

Wow, great argument bro. Mt St Helens provided us with proof for that.

By the way, seashells are made of calcium- something, which is already 'stone'.I'm not responsible for your ignorance.

 

[USincognito]

I can post a picture of a fossilized hat. Now I don't think it happened in a year. But it could of.

No you can't. That hat isn't fossilized. It's encased. Do you even understand what fossilization is?

 

[Jimmy D]

Not that I mind, I just thought it odd that you'd stick a quote in here from a month or 2 ago and from another thread altogether? What is that? Did you just get confused or was there a purpose?

Hmm? refusal to learn? I said I'd take a look at your evidence, proof, or whatever you have, but I guess you are like many, you have none, or you are afraid to present it...just more talk/excuses. No specific argument, I think evolution is all nonsense, and those who believe it are deluding themselves for reasons I've already given. Have I not always been clear on that point?

Anyway, whatever you want to do/not do works for me. I honestly didn't expect much..people around here often get weird when asked to prove evolution, and I do understand that completely, but it's nothing new.

The purpose was to remind readers that you have a track record of refusing to address evidence and admitting that you don't understand said evidence, it seems your participation in these threads is purely to derail and obfuscate. That quote was from a thread specifically created to provide you with evidence which you consequently hand waved away or ignored, preferring instead to fall back on your vacuous rhetoric. If you want evidence for evolution please go back to that thread.

 

[USincognito]

There were man-made objects found embedded in solid lumps of coal, so either mankind is hundreds of millions of years old(not!), or we do not have a very clear picture of how these things were formed and the specific environment involved.

They aren't. What you are describing is referred to as Forteana and nearly every example has a poor chain of custody. Further most of the claims are from the 1800s into the early 1900s.

A great example of this is the so-called Coso artifact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coso_artifact