The thread is about demonstrating that 'life and it's building blocks are too complicated to evolve', if you have nothing to say on the matter why are you posting here?
Upvote
0
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.
Seriously, I wouldn't waste any more time feeding the trolls. I counted at least 15 different alerts from the same individual under my alert tab in under 24 hours, at which point I just ignored them. The fact that some of these atheists come to a Christian forum, obsessively argue their non-Christian point, and obviously have no regard for the Bible, should be a clear enough indicator of a troll. Let's not continue to feed them.
So, you are given evidence, you wave it away, then you whine that no one has produced any evidence!
Excuse me, but tell us again about honesty.........?
Yet the truth of the matter was, I waved my hand because as I saw it, the evidence fell apart at the onset, or no one could/would explain how what little was brought forth was evidence at all...no more to it.
Also, on more than one occasion I've asked evidence be brought to the table for examination, offered to address it as I did the prior, and was met with mostly excuses and few takers. And I do get why that is, but don't just lie about it and try to trow it back on me, I did what I could to offer you all the opportunity.
So what you are saying there is far from the actual truth...but no surprise...more desperate attempts from the losing end.
I've asked evidence be brought to the table for examination, offered to address it as I did the prior, and was met with mostly excuses and few takers.
Steve, you really need to try to do better... some of this stuff you present is so clearly twist of fact, not how it went at all, clutching at less than even straws... and you do so much of that, it's not just me who notices it, and it only hurts your cause.
I waved it because I took it into consideration, it fell apart, I stated why and was done with it, but did not ignore it as per your clear twist of the situation..Again, that's just making you look bad. If you insist on doing that, go with situations that make it less obvious, and not something others either can't see through right away or can check out and clearly see you are making things up.
And your taking to me about honesty?
I'll just keep this short for the both of you, I did address evidence, just as I said. What evidence? Steve wasn't specific when he said I didn't. I did just as I said I did, if you say I did not, you are liars. As to addressing any or all particular evidence, you let your imagination run completely off with you there. No one brought that up, no on asked me if I addressed that and I never claimed I addressed everything, see the dishonest twist there? You got nothing...zip.
In your desperation to find fault, sounds like you are losing it to me.
That's not evidence, that's a claim. And a claim that does not answer my request from @Hieronymus : show that catarasphorism being a creation science claim isn't bunk.
Full genome sequencing of parents and children, validated with sequencing of a third generation. You can also use estimates from de novo mutations that cause genetic diseases (e.g. hemophilia), and from human-chimpanzee divergence. Each estimate has its own biases and uncertainty, but they all agree with one another within a factor of two. Similar rates are seen in all other animals, and even in single-celled eukaryotes and bacteria if you adjust for the number of cell generations per human generation. What they are not consistent with is the rate required by YEC; that high a mutation rate is seen only in viruses.The would depend upon the accuracy inwhich you base your mutation rate upon.
Where did you develope your mutation rate from?
For starters try exploring the 5 alleged extinction events...after you have pondered those with objectivity come back and seek me out for more
Oh dear......
I'm done.
Full genome sequencing of parents and children, validated with sequencing of a third generation. You can also use estimates from de novo mutations that cause genetic diseases (e.g. hemophilia), and from human-chimpanzee divergence. Each estimate has its own biases and uncertainty, but they all agree with one another within a factor of two. Similar rates are seen in all other animals, and even in single-celled eukaryotes and bacteria if you adjust for the number of cell generations per human generation. What they are not consistent with is the rate required by YEC; that high a mutation rate is seen only in viruses.
Sorry, I made the mistake of including too much information. You were obviously confused by my post, since nothing you wrote here has anything to do with how I determined the mutation rate in humans. Here's the operative sentence from my post: "Full genome sequencing of parents and children, validated with sequencing of a third generation."That won't produce accurate numbers. Single-celled eukaryotes and bacteria reproduce much differently thn humans. Bacteria can simply touch each other and transfer genetic material.
The Human chimp divergence never happened. Despite that i don't think there were enough mutations to cause the differences...which seems to be growing as science technology increases.
You have also a uniformatarian view and present the so-called mutations as always being the same.
I think you should try again, this time with something relevant.I think for the reasons above your numbers should be considered as bogus.
Did you miss the two times that I told you I've already answered your question twice? Do you think the number is going to change if you keep asking the same question?Now, I have answered your question....how many of the 1% are considered as beneficial. (ballpark number is OK)
That won't produce accurate numbers. Single-celled eukaryotes and bacteria reproduce much differently thn humans. Bacteria can simply touch each other and transfer genetic material.
The Human chimp divergence never happened. Despite that i don't think there were enough mutations to cause the differences...which seems to be growing as science technology increases.
You have also a uniformatarian view and present the so-called mutations as always being the same.
I think for the reasons above your numbers should be considered as bogus.
Now, I have answered your question....how many of the 1% are considered as beneficial. (ballpark number is OK)
And no, you haven't answered my question. How many mutations do you think happened in which generations? How big was the human population then?Now, I have answered your question
Sorry, I made the mistake of including too much information. You were obviously confused by my post, since nothing you wrote here has anything to do with how I determined the mutation rate in humans. Here's the operative sentence from my post: "Full genome sequencing of parents and children, validated with sequencing of a third generation."
I think you should try again, this time with something relevant.
Did you miss the two times that I told you I've already answered your question twice? Do you think the number is going to change if you keep asking the same question?
And no, you haven't answered my question. How many mutations do you think happened in which generations? How big was the human population then?
The Human chimp divergence never happened.
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?