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

[Jimmy D]

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.

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?

 

[Kenny'sID]

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.........?

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?

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

Please show me where you addressed the evidence in the OP of that thread or apologise. I am not a liar and I don't appreciate being called one.

You were presented with evidence regarding

- Physiology, embryology and genetics supporting whale evolution
- Diversity of globin genes in modern vertebrates to do whole genome duplication in ancestral population.
- Common ancestry for animals and fungi.
- A hominid skull that none of the Creationists could tell if it was 'fully ape' or 'fully human'.
- Genetic evidence showing that lungfish are the closest sarcopterygian to tetrapods.
- Feathers and hair evolving from scales.
- Image of a series of hominid skulls.
- Homologous genetic section between humans and chimpanzees.
- Photos of three transitional fossils.
- Embryology, and specifically Evolutionary Development.
- ARHGAP11B and human brain evolution.
- The evolution of sexual reproduction in primordial red algae.

(thanks Incognito)

Where did you attempt to address that evidence?

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 you call me a liar?

 

[SteveB28]

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?

Save the insults, junior, for those who will be impressed by them. I've been sleighted by experts. You are a lightweight, so stop trying so hard....

Now.....yes, "honesty". Honest people do as they say they are going to do. You haven't addressed any of that evidence. You've waved it away, without giving any analysis to justify your position.

And then you whine that no evidence has been presented.

That's dishonest.

Your approach reminds me of a comedy performance that may be before your time....are you familiar with the Monty Python sketch entitled the 'Dead Parrot'? You'd make a perfect replacement for John Cleese........

 

[Kenny'sID]

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.

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

Oh dear......

I'm done.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm done.

I certainly hope so.

 

[pshun2404]

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.

For starters try exploring the 5 alleged extinction events...after you have pondered those with objectivity come back and seek me out for more

 

[sfs]

The would depend upon the accuracy inwhich you base your mutation rate upon.
Where did you develope your mutation rate from?

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

For starters try exploring the 5 alleged extinction events...after you have pondered those with objectivity come back and seek me out for more

No, I won't. And it seems that many people on this website have a problem with reading comprehension: I asked Heironymus, not you.

 

[SteveB28]

Oh dear......

I'm done.

I think I will join you Jimmy. There are plenty of other people who are prepared to engage honestly in debate.

 

[Waterwerx]

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?

 

[-57]

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.

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)

 

[sfs]

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.

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 for the reasons above your numbers should be considered as bogus.

I think you should try again, this time with something relevant.

Now, I have answered your question....how many of the 1% are considered as beneficial. (ballpark number is OK)

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?

 

[loveofourlord]

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)

oh? How did the human-chimp divergence never happen? Al the evidence points there, got something that refutes that?

 

[sfs]

Now, I have answered your 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?

 

[AV1611VET]

-- Ouch!

 

[-57]

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?

3 generations isn't long enough.
I don't accept that answer.

 

[-57]

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?

I don't think that number can be know with the information we have.

 

[SteveB28]

The Human chimp divergence never happened.

Why? Because it doesn't sit well with your particular belief set?

How do you explain the insertion patterns of endogenous retroviruses in both chimpanzees and humans (and between the other primate groups for that matter)?