• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

On DNA percent differences between taxa and YEC timelines

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by tas8831, Sep 21, 2021.

  1. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,816
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Fallacy of begging the question.
    Evidence please.
     
  2. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,014
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Mark Quayle said:
    Nevertheless, IF God, miraculous intervention is always available.

    Only if I wish to prove the premise, "God". That is not what I was trying to do.

    Mark Quayle said:
    The creationist doesn't hold to 'level of genetic diversity' being arrived at all. It was made as-is.

    Two reasons I don't provide the evidence you request: 1. I am not the creationist in the sense that I am trying to describe here. I am merely trying to help the reader understand the fault in the logic in their opposition's thinking here. 2. the evidence is not needed in order to point out the fault in the argument of their opponent.

    So: You, or somebody, used arguments assuming evolution, to show that young earth provided even less time for evolution to occur. I pointed out that that argument is bogus, as it assumes evolutionary sequences to defeat a non-evolutionary claim.

    You, or somebody, also said that "short of miraculous intervention" such and such would, or would not, happen. I provided a simple argument —presupposing God, miraculous intervention is very much possible.
     
  3. Hans Blaster

    Hans Blaster On campaign in Georgia

    +4,540
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    So, you're arguing a position you don't actually support?

    Why should we ever engage you on the C&E sub-forum ever again?

    If you were arguing like this for a position I supported but you really didn't, I would ask you to stop. You do it poorly and make a hash out of the position you claim to argue against.

    Good riddance.
     
  4. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,816
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Creationists that understand genetics absolutely accept the reality of mutation. In fact, many creationists actually rely on them to spin their yarns - Joe Mastropaolo, PhD, YEC, claims God created mutations as a punishment after The Fall and that they will ultimately drive us to extinction - John Sanford does basically the same.

    That some luddite YEC on the internet denies mutations is irrelevant.
     
  5. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,816
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    You are relying on God to be real as a foundation for your position. Begging the question.
    I am not concerned with people that deny the facts.
    You don't have it.
    Apples and oranges. If there are creationists that deny mutations, then they are at odds with not only the more educated creationists, but demonstrable reality.
    You say your favorite baseball team is the Yankees. My response is to claim baseball is not real.
    Did I really demonstrate a flaw in your position?
    Are you implying that humans evolved? Or what? Mutations occur and accumulate. The YEC believes without evidence that all humans are descended from one dude made from dust no more than 10000 years ago. It thus cannot be possible for any 2 living humans to differ generically - at all - if mutations do not exist, and cannot accumulate in lineages. Your attempt to pretend that my reasoning was flawed denies the ability to use DNA to identify criminals, to identify long lost relatives, etc.

    It is true that one of us did not think through our positions, but I think it is now quite clear which of us that is.

    Let the reader recall that, despite you making anti-evolution implicitly science-based arguments against evolution, you were unaware of the fact that gene duplication is real until a couple of weeks ago. That should tell the reader which of us is more likely to have made a relevant argument on a subject like this.
    You did nothing of the sort. Mutations can accumulate without evolution (at least a YEC could argue that), and my position was premised on the claims made BY YECs. Perhaps you missed that part?

    You claim the Yankees are your favorite team.
    I dismiss your position by claiming it is bogus because someone else said your favorite team is the Astros.

    And thus you admit that YECism is not reality based, as it requires magic.
     
  6. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    +3,816
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Sure you did.
    Like you were after the truth about evolution and tried to argue against it scientifically, despite the fact that you later admitted that you do not understand the science? Maybe you did get yelled at - sounds like you probably deserved it.
    You seem to project rather well - like nearly all of you tribe.
    Theories in science are based on facts. You say you want to know, but look at the thread in which I had agreed to explain genetics to you in - after a single exchange, you could not help but do the creationist shuffle - ignored things I wrote, asked a couple of leading questions, then tried to dismiss it all because after I had explained that one issue you were like 'that still isn't enough to make me accept evolution' or whatever blow-off quip you made.. You may want to know some things, but it seemed pretty clear that once you were on the road to knowing some basic genetics, maybe you started to see that you were in over your head? That maybe all the stuff you had been dismissing all these years could maybe put a dent in your usually overconfident anti-evolution proclamations?

    Who knows.

    When I see one group claim the earth is no more than 10000 years old, and another group claiming that it is billions of years old, and both groups use the same source, I can't help but wonder.
     
  7. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,014
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    You misunderstand me. They claim mutations happen, but not beneficial reproducible mutations, in the great numbers necessary for the progress from primordial soup to human. At least, that is what I have heard.
     
  8. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +13,252
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    What is a "beneficial reproducible mutation"? :scratch:
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  9. Shemjaza

    Shemjaza Regular Member Supporter

    +2,972
    Australia
    Atheist
    Single
    AU-Greens
    Ever drunk a glass of milk?

    Ever seen a dog?

    Eaten corn on the cob?

    Mutations are trivial to present. Advantageous or not are typically just contextual to the environment they are found in.
     
  10. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,014
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Most mutations are not beneficial to the mutated animal. Many mutations are not reproducible, mutated animal passing the mutation to its offspring and so on, some not even able to have offspring.
     
  11. Shemjaza

    Shemjaza Regular Member Supporter

    +2,972
    Australia
    Atheist
    Single
    AU-Greens
    Yes, but beneficial mutation will confer a statistical advantage.

    That's the definition of a beneficial mutation. If it can't be passed on or it doesn't confer an advantage then it isn't relevant.

    Evolution is about statistical trends over an entire population over multiple generations, not about single examples.
     
  12. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,014
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Isn't relevant to what? Evolution, or Evolution theory?

    If conversations, and as a result, thinking, become only along the lines of 'beneficial', it may well be assumed that beneficial is the norm, and therefore, the numbers of generations between one form and another are assumed to easily accommodate the progression to what we see nowadays. No actual numbers are necessary. And there's one roadblock to me (and many others) believing in Darwinian Evolution of the Species. If someone can show me how it happened (not with speculative language of how it might have happened) then there might be one huge roadblock out of the way.

    In arguments about First Cause, i.e. God, atheists argue that I must prove it, before they can believe it is, nevermind that I must prove that it is God. Meanwhile, though I prefer they admit that if there is First Cause, then it is necessarily God, I argue first cause because the logic even there is compelling, without being quite so personal. Many atheists I have spoken with, while they will not all admit first cause is logically necessary, they will happily admit it makes sense. (Haha, they don't often then invite me to proceed to show that First Cause is God.)

    If you can show me the numbers (not speculation) even then I will not believe in the Evolution that the scientific community (consensus) preaches, but at least that roadblock is removed.
     
  13. Hans Blaster

    Hans Blaster On campaign in Georgia

    +4,540
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    Go seek out the experts. They have assembled evolutionary sequences, computed genetic differences, etc.

    You seem to be complaining about the magnitude of the changes, but don't want numbers and yet complain about the non-number arguments while not wanting numbers.

    This thread isn't about first cause or atheists. It's about the genetic differences between large groups of creatures and how they could not arise in the YEC timeline.

    Even if we satisfy your demands for data on this item, you will still refuse to accept the appropriate conclusions. Pfft. We're not here to service you obstinance.
     
  14. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,014
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    If I was particularly hopeful of being convinced, I might do so. But I'm not, just as most atheists have no use for arguments for first-cause-with-intent. Dismissed with a flick of the wrist.

    Darwinian Evolutionary theory is not my claim. I don't need to prove it wrong.
     
  15. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +13,252
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    Generally when talking about mutations relative to evolution, we're talking about mutations in the germ line; e.g. the types of mutations that can get passed on via reproduction.

    In the context of mutations that convey a fitness advantage (e.g. beneficial mutations), those mutations increase the chance of reproductive success. Thus are more likely to be passed on and propagate in a population.
     
  16. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +13,252
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    FWIW, the field of evolutionary biology has moved along quite a bit since "Darwinian" evolution.
     
  17. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,014
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Of course, but by and large, they don't happen that way —at least, from what I understand they are actually very rare in any noticeably significant changes, even across many generations. Hence my question: Do they happen often enough? Or does the egg imply chicken?
     
  18. Mark Quayle

    Mark Quayle Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,014
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    yes, I have been told that, yet I don't want to be told that even YEC believes in 'biological evolution' in the same breath. They do believe all things evolve, and even mutate, and biologically, too, but not the same way or degree as consensus seems to hold to, so I find it necessary to differentiate the one from the other, somehow.
     
  19. Hans Blaster

    Hans Blaster On campaign in Georgia

    +4,540
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    To repeat: This thread isn't about "first cause" argument regardless of how good or bad they are. (Nor is the overall assessment of evolution related to such arguments.)

    What evolutionary theory is, instead, is a broad set of explanations for a deep body of evidence collected over hundreds of years by thousands upon thousands of people to explain the diversity of life on our planet. That work has been done by people of every religion, political philosophy, age, gender, race, ethnicity, etc. on the planet. If you dismiss it, do so for the way it which it does or does not explain things and not because the people you see arguing for it disagree with you on something else.

    [Sometimes those "religion labels" beside our names are just a curse. Without it you'd be hard pressed to determine my religious opinion as most of my posts aren't about religion at all.]
     
  20. Shemjaza

    Shemjaza Regular Member Supporter

    +2,972
    Australia
    Atheist
    Single
    AU-Greens
    Both. It's entirely built on the principles that some traits are hereditary.

    This is not generally a controversial point in the CvE debate. (However the consequences from this point can be.)

    Can you specifically explain what numbers you are missing?

    I think an issue is that beneficial versus neutral versus detrimental can be situation and environment dependent.

    A slight variation in ability to retain heat might be a huge advantage for an arctic animal and a massive detriment to a desert dweller.

    Most descriptions of the need for a First Cause seem to be special pleading and most explanations about its "necessary" properties seem to be bald assertions.

    I'll give you that it's certainly mysterious... but mysterious isn't a licence to assume your personal preference is correct.

    (First Cause concepts, while interesting, are not on topic for this thread. If you want to discuss it please start a thread and reply to my post with a link to it and I will happily discuss it further there.)

    Inheritance, mutation, differential success over generations are all established points of fact... but you want people to find specific numbers for not particularly specific scenarios, that you are already going to ignore.

    So, if you can find a specific road block to the understood systems I'm curious enough to have a look for you... but I'm not going to make an extended effort for no reason.
     
Loading...