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

-57 · Sep 11, 2016

sfs said:
First, your proposal doesn't make sense in terms of the creationist story you're telling. You're saying that while humans were degenerating, accumulating deleterious mutations and suffering dramatically shortened lifespans, their mutation rate was improving? And not just improving, but getting much, much better? Even if we allow that the long-lived guys had higher mutation rates because of lifespan (paternal mutation rates increase with age), mutation rates still had to have decreased by about a factor of ten since then. That's not consistent with the rest of your story.

We still have to determine what the actual mutation rate is/was..will be. You haven't shown what you presented to be correct.
You are judging my model on information that hasn't been shown to be correct. Because of that...you question is based upon info that doesn't appear as valid.

sfs said:
Second, there's no physical mechanism by which this could happen.

I really don't have to go any further than your opening statement....Subject a fetus to radiation and the quickly forming cells can have a much higher mutation rate.

sfs said:
Third, we have independent evidence for the age of the mutations we're talking about. That evidence comes from associations between nearby genetic variants (technical term, "linkage disequilibrium"). When a new mutation occurs, the new variant appears on a particular chromosome having a particular set of other variants. It will be passed on to future generations along with those variants, unless recombination during meiosis breaks up the chromosome and combines it with a different one. But recombination only occurs about once every 80 million basepairs per generation, so the associations break down slowly. Recent mutations, then, will appear on long unbroken segments of chromosome, while older mutations will be on short segments. We thus have a good idea what recent mutations should look like. The mutation that confers lactose tolerance on many Europeans, for example, sits on a largely unbroken segment of DNA that is over a million basepairs long. Conveniently, we happen to know when that mutation spread in the European population, because researchers have tracked its rise in DNA samples from ancient skeletons: it became common around 4500 years ago. That's around the end of the time when -57's high mutation rate was contributing lots of mutations. If we look at 1% mutations throughout the genome, we find them on unbroken segments that are only 100,000 basepairs long, one tenth the length of the lactose mutation. 5% mutations are on even shorter segments, half as long again. Thus, the bulk of the genetic variants we see in the 1% - 5% range are at least 10 to 20 times older (in generations) than 4500 years ago. (That's actually a lower bound for complicated reasons I won't go into.)

Your applying old earth time scales to your position. This position hasn't been demonstrated to be correct.
You're also assuming your mutation rate is correct. People and bacteria have diffferent mutation rate and can't be directly correlated. Your model says that they can...and hasn't been demonstrated to be true.

sfs said:
Fourth, the processes that lead to new mutations in the next generation also produce the mutations that give us cancer. If people live long enough today, pretty much everyone gets cancer eventually, since the dangerous mutations continue to accumulate the longer you live. If mutation rates were really, say, 70 times higher per generation a few thousand years ago, then essentially everyone would have gotten cancer while still young. If anything, those enormously long life spans back then would have required a much lower mutation rate than we have so they could avoid cancer that long; instead, it's being proposed that their mutation rate was much higher than ours. Given that mutation rate, most of them would have been dead of cancer by age 20.

Once again you're basing your argument upon unproven speculation and assertions of what the rates were.

sfs said:
I will add that this kind of approach is pretty typical of creationists' engagement with scientific data. Where a scientist will try to find an explanation that explains new data in a way that's consistent with all existing data -- since that's the best way of figuring out what's really going on -- creationists will make ad hoc proposals in an effort to make inconvenient data go away.

Seems as if you're trying to use fallible science to show the bible as wrong.
.

-57 · Sep 11, 2016

doubtingmerle said:
That depends whom you ask. Some Christians interpret Genesis 1 differently.

Per the title of this thread, I thought you were going to bring up a scientific reason to persuade us that your hypothesis of how nature's god did it is more scientific than the idea that nature's god used evolution. I see now that your response has nothing to do with science or reason, but with your interpretation of scripture.

Perhaps I should point you back to post 3.

-57 · Sep 11, 2016

Bump.

-57 said:
Post 3 was a little bit more than "nothing".
Now, I was going to go a bit deeper, but I tried to keep it as simple as possible. For example we could go deeper by asking, how does the microtubule know where point "A" is and where point "B" is? What tells it to construct and then deconstruct after the motor protein walks over it? Do you realize just how complicated the code to construct the signaling for that to occur must be?
Then I'm asked to believe that it came about via a process of mutations, random chance and natural selection?

This post seems to have been forgotten.

joshua 1 9 · Sep 11, 2016

doubtingmerle said:
For what it is worth, I can not only understand books, but I can also tie my shoes.

That is good, we talk about when the rubber meets the road and this is when you get to prove yourself.

bhsmte · Sep 11, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
That is good, we talk about when the rubber meets the road and this is when you get to prove yourself.

Prove what?

sfs · Sep 11, 2016

-57 said:
We still have to determine what the actual mutation rate is/was

I've already shown what the mutation rate is now. I'm now showing what would have happened if the actual mutation rate had been higher in the past.

You haven't shown what you presented to be correct.

Your response here could be aptly shortened to "Is not!" Not exactly compelling. Try refuting my arguments.

You are judging my model on information that hasn't been shown to be correct.

Every statement I made has been shown to be correct in the scientific literature. If you have evidence that any statement was wrong, by all means present it.

I really don't have to go any further than your opening statement....Subject a fetus to radiation and the quickly forming cells can have a much higher mutation rate.

Did you read what you're replying to? The argument is that there is no process that will increase all mutation rates across the board, of the many kinds of mutations that occur. If you subject a fetus to radiation, and you will indeed get a much higher mutation rate -- mutations characteristic of radiation damage (lots of double-stranded break repair, meaning chromosomal rearrangements and insertions/deletions). You won't find any increase in mutations at, say, CpG sites, which are caused by a different process.

You appear to be way out of your depth here.

Your applying old earth time scales to your position.

No, I'm not. I'm assuming a young earth and showing that your proposal still makes no sense.

You're also assuming your mutation rate is correct.

Pay attention: I'm assuming that your claimed mutation rate is correct.

People and bacteria have diffferent mutation rate and can't be directly correlated. Your model says that they can...and hasn't been demonstrated to be true.

This statement has nothing at all to do with my post here, or with any argument I've made in this thread.

Once again you're basing your argument upon unproven speculation and assertions of what the rates were.

I'm basing my argument on your unproven speculation about what the rates were.

Seems as if you're trying to use fallible science to show the bible as wrong.

No, I'm using fallible science to show that you are wrong. Because however fallible science is, it's a lot more likely to right here than you are.

To sum up. . . You still have offered:
- No explanation for the number of generations that had a small population.
- No physical mechanism for why all kinds of mutation rates were so high.
- No explanation for how they decreased.
- No explanation for how humans with very high mutation rates could survive.
- No tiniest shred of evidence that mutation rates were ever substantially different than they are today.

sfs · Sep 11, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
If you want to build something you have to have a foundation to build on. Or the storms of life will come and your whole mutation theory will come tumbling down.

What if the storms come while the rubber is meeting the road and you're caught tying your shoes? What then??

joshua 1 9 · Sep 11, 2016

bhsmte said:
Prove what?

Prove if the tire is junk or will stand the test of actually being used. Do you want good tires on your car? Do you want them to draw you a pretty picture to sell you a tire or do you want to examine the test results when the rubber meets the road. That is why the government requires the manufacturer to put the test results on the tire itself. So you can know how well the tire is rated. You can draw all the pretty pictures you want, I wanna see the certified test results. In the very least I want to know the treadwear rating, the traction rating and the temperature rating. To be sure you are not using a tire for something it was not designed to do. If you have a lot of rain you need as tire tread that can handle rain. If you have a lot of snow you need an all year tire. If you live in a very hot state you want to get the best temperature rating. Otherwise you may have a blowout and a failure and then you either need to get out and fix the tire or have your car towed to the tire store. I had a brand new car once and a tire blew out and they told me it was not covered under the warranty and I was really upset with those idiots that sold me that car with junk tires on it. They were really, really smooth though. The car test drove like a dream.

bhsmte · Sep 11, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
Prove if the tire is junk or will stand the test of actually being used. Do you want good tires on your car? Do you want them to draw you a pretty picture to sell you a tire or do you want to examine the test results when the rubber meets the road. That is why the government requires the manufacturer to put the test results on the tire itself. So you can know how well the tire is rated. You can draw all the pretty pictures you want, I wanna see the certified test results. In the very least I want to know the treadwear rating, the traction rating and the temperature rating. To be sure you are not using a tire for something it was not designed to do. If you have a lot of rain you need as tire tread that can handle rain. If you have a lot of snow you need an all year tire. If you live in a very hot state you want to get the best temperature rating. Otherwise you may have a blowout and a failure and then you either need to get out and fix the tire or have your car towed to the tire store. I had a brand new car once and a tire blew out and they told me it was not covered under the warranty and I was really upset with those idiots that sold me that car with junk tires on it. They were really, really smooth though. The car test drove like a dream.

Major league gibberish.

joshua 1 9 · Sep 11, 2016

sfs said:
What if the storms come while the rubber is meeting the road and you're caught tying your shoes? What then??

It is very rare that your shoe lace would get hung up so that your not able to properly use the peddles during a storm. Although I did have a car once that the brakes quit working because there was a malfunction in what they call the skid control. Turns out they had a recall on that. My point is do you buy a car because they draw you a pretty picture or do you look at the test results to see how safe that car is for your family?

-57 · Sep 11, 2016

sfs said:
I've already shown what the mutation rate is now.

You seem to have forgot that I rejected your mutation rates. Until you can accurately present the rates....the discussion is stalled. The argument you present is currently based upon assertion and assumption...

-57 · Sep 11, 2016

sfs said:
Pay attention: I'm assuming that your claimed mutation rate is correct.

I never claimed a mutation rate. You just assumed I accepted your mutation rate.

joshua 1 9 · Sep 11, 2016

bhsmte said:
Major league gibberish.

Up to you if your not worried about the safety of your family. I am here to take care of my wife and children. I just had a situation where my wife was out working on the yard and someone was prowling around on the other side of the fence. I was quick to be between her and whoever that was. Turned out that it was just a new neighbor looking for his baseball. But I was keeping an eye out to make sure my family is safe and protected. A lot of people are alive today because someone was watching out for them.

joshua 1 9 · Sep 11, 2016

-57 said:
You seem to have forgot that I rejected your mutation rates.

DNA repairs itself and is self correcting. This is the reason why there are no copy errors in the Bible. Because of the mathematical precision of the Word of God the errors are detected and they can be corrected.

bhsmte · Sep 11, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
DNA repairs itself and is self correcting. This is the reason why there are no copy errors in the Bible. Because of the mathematical precision of the Word of God the errors are detected and they can be corrected.

No copy errors?

You would do well to do a scholarly study of this subject.

sfs · Sep 11, 2016

-57 said:
You seem to have forgot that I rejected your mutation rates. Until you can accurately present the rates....the discussion is stalled.

You seem to have forgotten what you actually wrote. Here is it:
"As I previously pointed out....you are assuming the last 3 generations...were the same a 100 generations ago.
We know something changed because after the flood the life spans shortened...then after the days of Peleg, they shortened again."

You sure seem to be rejecting the idea that measured mutation rates from the last three generations apply 100 generations ago. My response assumed that you were attempting to make an actual, rational argument. Judging from this post, I was mistaken.

doubtingmerle · Sep 12, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
Up to you if your not worried about the safety of your family. I am here to take care of my wife and children. I just had a situation where my wife was out working on the yard and someone was prowling around on the other side of the fence. I was quick to be between her and whoever that was. Turned out that it was just a new neighbor looking for his baseball. But I was keeping an eye out to make sure my family is safe and protected. A lot of people are alive today because someone was watching out for them.

You might want to check if the shoe laces in this argument go through all the loops. Just saying.

SteveB28 · Sep 12, 2016

-57 said:
Tell me...what good would quoting the scientist do? Your ears are already deaf.

So you have no such names then?

Do you realise that your religion has a commandment forbidding the bearing of false witness.....?

SteveB28 · Sep 12, 2016

-57 said:
You seem to have forgot that I rejected your mutation rates. Until you can accurately present the rates....the discussion is stalled. The argument you present is currently based upon assertion and assumption...

Can we interpret that to mean......

"I have my fingers firmly wedged into my ears, so that I don't have to listen to any more of your nasty facts".........?

SteveB28 · Sep 12, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
DNA repairs itself and is self correcting. This is the reason why there are no copy errors in the Bible. Because of the mathematical precision of the Word of God the errors are detected and they can be corrected.

Please explain when the story in John (?) about the woman taken in adultery first appears......?

.

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Senior Member

I'll think about it.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency