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

[joshua 1 9]

Science usually doesn't take into consideration those things which are demonstrably false.

Problem is you can not demonstrate that anything is false. You do not even try because you know that you would fail in your attempt.

 

[SteveB28]

Collins talks about founder effect and common ancestor but that is not what we are talking about here. When I ask for an example of a beneficial mutation people want to talk about Sickle Cell Disease. Most mutations are either neutral or harmful. So called beneficial mutations are rare. So what you end up with is what they call frameshift which is more like reshuffling a deck of cards then a mistake or error.

Collins also talks about the effects of beneficial mutations.

Do you dispute this?


.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Que? What outside force??

The idea of entropy comes from a principle of thermodynamics dealing with energy. It usually refers to the idea that everything in the universe eventually moves from order to disorder, and entropy is the measurement of that change. If the universe created itself then the universe would move from disorder to order, not the other way around. Chemical bonds tend not to be stable and this causes decay that is steady and measurable.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Collins also talks about the effects of beneficial mutations.

Do you dispute this?

I dispute random mutations. I do not consider frameshift to be random. I consider this to be a part of the design that was there from the beginning. All the building blocks were there from the beginning. The laws that regulate them were there from the beginning.

 

[SteveB28]

I dispute random mutations. I do not consider frameshift to be random. I consider this to be a part of the design that was there from the beginning. All the building blocks were there from the beginning. The laws that regulate them were there from the beginning.

Collins also talks about random mutations.

Do you dispute this?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The idea of entropy comes from a principle of thermodynamics dealing with energy. It usually refers to the idea that everything in the universe eventually moves from order to disorder, and entropy is the measurement of that change.

It's a measure of the disorder, not the change in disorder.

If the universe created itself then the universe would move from disorder to order, not the other way around.

What makes you think so?

Chemical bonds tend not to be stable and this causes decay that is steady and measurable.

Molecules didn't form until at least 400,000 years after it all started, and then only hydrogen and helium.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I dispute random mutations. I do not consider frameshift to be random. I consider this to be a part of the design that was there from the beginning. All the building blocks were there from the beginning. The laws that regulate them were there from the beginning.

Did you know that we have used radiation to cause random mutations in at least 3,000 crop plants to generate new varieties? They go through around 10,000 to one million mutants to select the right one. That gave us red grapefruit, varieties of rice, wheat, barley, pears, peas, cotton, peppermint, sunflowers, peanuts, sesame, bananas, cassava, sorghum, and disease-resistant cocoa. The mutant wheat is used for bread and pasta and the mutant barley for beer and fine whiskey. It's called mutation breeding (mutagenesis), and these days it's relatively easy to see where in the genome the mutations have occurred and even discover how they take effect.

Radiation causes the same kind of mutations in the natural world too, although in a less controlled way.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The fall is something that science does not take into consideration at all. We know that cold sucks the energy out of hot, the universe goes from order to disorder or entropy.

Sorry, but science absolutely does take the law of increasing entropy (disorder) into account. It knows all about how hot objects lose energy to cold objects, and how this causes a net increase in the entropy of the universe (second law of thermodynamics).

But although the universe as a whole is increasing in entropy, in disorder, that does not mean every spot of the universe is increasing in entropy. The earth, for instance, is an open system with heat flow from the sun and discharge of waste heat to the surrounding universe. The net effect of this causes a decrease in entropy of the earth, which can be used to drive all sorts of processes on earth.

And no, "the fall" is not where the second law began. The law of entropy drives all the processes of the universe, and this was going on long before people existed. Ken Ham, for instance, lists this argument about entropy beginning at the fall as so bad, creationists should never use it. I suppose that message didn't get down to the troops. See https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/ .

This in and of itself is an argument for God because the universe is required to have an outside force in order for it to work.
We do not know that the energy comes from the God of the Bible. But we do know that the system requires an energy outside of the system.

Change that story to past tense, please. We know that the universe required a source of energy to get started. Once it got started, it has no need for energy to keep going (although it is possible that dark energy is still being added to the universe.) And how the universe got its original burst of energy is a different topic for a different thread. Stay with the topic, please.

We have to build a house the house does not build itself. Then once the house is built it starts to decay. The atoms themselves do not have perfect bonds and they tend to fall about.

Not all houses are falling down. Some houses are being built. A good builder can build a house, even though the forces of nature lead to decay. Likewise, the laws of nature are quite good at using the natural forces of nature to build things that have order.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Collins talks about founder effect and common ancestor but that is not what we are talking about here

He talks about the Theory of evolution. Which includes mutations and natural selection.

When I ask for an example of a beneficial mutation people want to talk about Sickle Cell Disease

Bacteria evolved a trait that opened up a whole new metabolism. It's called nylonese.

Then there are the mutations that are present in +90% of Tibetans, which resulted in a unique gene sequence which increased the production of red blood cells, which in turn has the beneficial effect that they don't get altitude sickness.

Then there are insects that evolved immunity to pesticides.
And bacteria that evolved immunity to anti-biotics.

And many, many more.

Your ignorance on the matter is painfully obvious.

Most mutations are either neutral or harmful. So called beneficial mutations are rare.

Beneficial mutations don't need to be common, for evolution through natural selection to work.

So what you end up with is what they call frameshift which is more like reshuffling a deck of cards then a mistake or error.

Mutations are mutations are mutations.
The very fact that you say that "most aren't beneficial", already undermines your very own argument. You don't have a leg to stand on. You keep saying that you agree with Collins, but not a single post you make on this subject actually reflects that - as you keep arguing against it.

It's high time for you to actually inform yourself on the topic, because your ignorance on the matter is painfully obvious.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Problem is you can not demonstrate that anything is false.

Were you high, when you wrote that?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The idea of entropy comes from a principle of thermodynamics dealing with energy. It usually refers to the idea that everything in the universe eventually moves from order to disorder, and entropy is the measurement of that change. If the universe created itself then the universe would move from disorder to order, not the other way around. Chemical bonds tend not to be stable and this causes decay that is steady and measurable.

This does not answer my question.

What "outside force"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I dispute random mutations. I do not consider frameshift to be random. I consider this to be a part of the design that was there from the beginning. All the building blocks were there from the beginning. The laws that regulate them were there from the beginning.

See? Another post that completely flies in the face of what Collins would agree with. And again you pretend as if this is what Collins says.

Inform yourself.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do you know the difference between cause and effect. I do not disagree with common ancestor.

You keep playing loose with these definitions, so please verify what you mean. When science refers to a "common ancestor", it means that all modern life evolved from a single one-celled organism. Every zebra, every crocodile, every oak tree, every mushroom, every starfish, everything, evolved from a single common ancestor of all species. The potato is a distant, distant relative of the skunk. That is what we mean by "common ancestor".

I think you are using the term to say there was one common ancestor of all zebras, one different common ancestor of all tigers, etc. This is not what scientists mean when they use the term.

So please be clear which you mean. It only causes confusion when you insist on using our terms and giving them your own meanings.

The Bible says that God knows the end from the beginning. That does not leave any room for mistakes, errors or mutations.

That's odd, because I live in a world of mistakes, errors and mutations. And we can even calculate the rate of failure of mechanical parts or mutations based on statistical methods. If God has no room for these things, how can I calculate them?

And if decay is always bad, why is the breakdown of organic waste into compost--or wheat into beer--so good?

You have presented your hypothesize and not you have to test your hypothesis and prove that it is true. If you think that science gives a prize for people when they come up with a hypothese your wrong. You get the prize when you are able to prove your hypothesis is accurate or true. Right now you have come up with zip, zero, zilch, nothing in the way of evidence for your theory.

I gave you 29 reasons. 29 is not zilch. Would you like to take those 29 reasons one at at time, and discuss if they are indeed evidence for evolution of all life from a single common ancestor?

 

[Hieronymus]

Running for cover is the Christian way it seems.

How would you know?
Or is that what they told you?

 

[Hieronymus]

Please point out to us where you think God is present?

That question has what to do with the topic?

 

[Hieronymus]

Sorry, but science absolutely does take the law of increasing entropy (disorder) into account.

Then evolutionism isn't science, because they need to believe the opposite happened naturally.

 

[SteveB28]

Then evolutionism isn't science, because they need to believe the opposite happened naturally.

How so......?

 

[Jimmy D]

Then evolutionism isn't science,

Of course not, it's a made up phrase that I assume is trying to make the theory of evolution sound like some sort of philosophy.

 

[Jimmy D]

Collins talks about founder effect and common ancestor but that is not what we are talking about here. When I ask for an example of a beneficial mutation people want to talk about Sickle Cell Disease.

LOL, reminds me of the last thread when Joshua claimed that there were no beneficial mutations.

Joshua: Show me evidence of a beneficial mutation

Me: Specific mutation in SLC24A5, called A111T, is found in virtually everyone of European ancestry.

Joshua: The key word here is beneficial. You claim that A111T is a mutation and that it is beneficial. Yet as a general rule people with lighter color European skin are not happy with their lighter skin.

Me: As people moved to areas farther from the equator with lower UV levels, natural selection favored lighter skin which allowed UV rays to penetrate and produce essential vitamin D. The darker skin of peoples who lived closer to the equator was important in preventing folate deficiency.

Joshua: You are the one that is failing to show a benefit. Can you prove that African and Asian people have a vitamin D deficiency in comparison to European people? They facts pretty much blow your off the cuff theory right out of the water.

Loudmouth: "Vitamin D insufficiency is more prevalent among African Americans (blacks) than other Americans and, in North America, most young, healthy blacks do not achieve optimal 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations at any time of year. This is primarily due to the fact that pigmentation reduces vitamin D production in the skin."
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/4/1126.full

Joshua: You're rascists!

It was quite an entertaining thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/frances-collins-concept-of-god.7942454/page-17

 

[DogmaHunter]

That question has what to do with the topic?

Isn't the topic that evolution couldn't have happened and that, by extension, a god must have done it? Doesn't that imply that those who agree with that, think a god is present?

How is it then not smack on topic, to ask that question?