Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
ARather a common factory.
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?)Roughly speaking....110 generations to 400 generations.
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.
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.
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.
Species adapt but do not "evolve" into an entirely new species.
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!
Dogs are not evolving.
Do you even understand the definition of evolving?
Maybe dogs will "evolve" and lose their legs like snakes did, too.
Your lack of evidence is very telling.
Your petty monkey insult was ignored,
Survival of a species from a mutation(which you say is random) does not get us from apes to humans.
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 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.
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.".
Wow, great argument bro.Mt St Helens provided us with proof for that.
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.
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
This is really not a reasonable response. Perhaps because there were no seashells there?
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.
I can post a picture of a fossilized hat. Now I don't think it happened in a year. But it could of.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?