Prove it or remove it challenge

[Loudmouth]

It appears you also missed this post.

It appears you have missed the answer I have given you multiple times now.

The human genome is 3 billion bases large and the mutation rate is about 50 mutations per person per generation. It only requires 180 million births to get that one mutation, assuming that there is only one possible mutation.

Of course, if we are looking for just a beneficial mutation, then the number of offspring is reduced drastically.

Are you going to respond or not?

 

[Loudmouth]

How does the above post of yours answer the question?

The human genome is 3 billion bases large and the mutation rate is about 50 mutations per person per generation. It only requires 180 million births to get that one mutation, assuming that there is only one possible mutation.

I highlighted it for you this time. Please try to read it.

 

[Paterfamilia]

An extremely thorough refuting:

One thing I am confident of, you didn't watch this or any of the videos.

Talk about embarrassing. "destroyed the Kalam" you said. Not so much.

And then you call me a jerk.

You guys seem to mostly be graduated from Madelines school of debate. Except for hogshead and maybe sfs.

You guys have a good life. I think I have decided I have better things to do.

 

[Loudmouth]

One thing I am confident of, you didn't watch this or any of the videos.

Talk about embarrassing. "destroyed the Kalam" you said. Not so much.

And then you call me a jerk.

You guys seem to mostly be graduated from Madelines school of debate. Except for hogshead and maybe sfs.

You guys have a good life. I think I have decided I have better things to do.

This tends to happen when creationists get all excited reading creationist websites, thinking that they have these silver bullets that will kill all the science they don't like. When they move from those creationist websites to the real world, they find that those arguments just don't hold up. In fact, many of the creationist websites were just plain lying to them. We see that a lot here. Libby Anne is a perfect example of this happening.

"And then I went to college, where my young earth creationist views were challenged. I responded by fighting back. I argued with both students and professors, sure that I had some sort of truth they were missing. I brought out every argument I had, and went back to my creationist resources for more. As time went by, though, I found my arguments effectively refuted by arguments and information I had never been exposed to before. To my utter shock, it seemed that the evidence actually fell on the side of evolution and against young earth creationism. After nearly a year of fighting, I conceded defeat."

Read more: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/04/29/why-i-am-an-atheist-libby-anne/#ixzz41OYuessp

 

[-57]

The human genome is 3 billion bases large and the mutation rate is about 50 mutations per person per generation. It only requires 180 million births to get that one mutation, assuming that there is only one possible mutation.

I highlighted it for you this time. Please try to read it.

How many are beneficial?

 

[Subduction Zone]

One thing I am confident of, you didn't watch this or any of the videos.

Talk about embarrassing. "destroyed the Kalam" you said. Not so much.

And then you call me a jerk.

You guys seem to mostly be graduated from Madelines school of debate. Except for hogshead and maybe sfs.

You guys have a good life. I think I have decided I have better things to do.

I watched the videos, tell me what parts that you did not understand. It is clear that WLC's nonsensical claims were refuted. Odds are that you were not the one that watched them. And I pointed out that you were acting like a jerk, that is not quite calling you a jerk. You were being impolite and rude again. We all know that you are terribly wrong. You even seem to know it because you make false claims that you will not support. Those videos and more explain to you why WLC has nothing. His number one problem is that he has no understanding of science at all and yet he tries to sound as if he does.

But thanks for getting as close as you ever will to admitting that you lost. I know it can be daunting when you run into people that have a countless number of replies for every ridiculous claim that you make. That is what happens when you are wrong.

By the way, you should not complain about the debating methods of others when you do far far worse. Once again, this is no a high school debate where it is easy to make up nonsense and get away with it. This is closer to the real world where claims have to be supported with valid links. You could not even support your claims with weak links.

You asked for examples of people defeating Lane or his arguments and I gave them to you. One was an actual debate with Lane that schooled him totally on how he was abusing physics. My offer still stands. But it seems that you are going to take a rather trollish exit instead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How many are beneficial?

I already answered that for you. I gave you a source that you did not understand.

 

[-57]

An another example of the Kalam being refuted.

In short they all point out that the Kalam Cosmological argument is quite often uses and equivocation fallacy and arguments from ignorance.

I find it rather difficult to believe something can self create from nothing......kinda like being and not being at the same time.

The answer...there has to be a being that always existed and never didn't exist...or there would still be nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find it rather difficult to believe something can self create from nothing......kinda like being and not being at the same time.

The answer...there has to be a being that always existed and never didn't exist...or there would still be nothing.

Yes, that is called an argument from ignorance. Your problem is that you have no understanding of quantum physics at all and you are discussing a more advanced topic in it. Didn't we go over virtual particles or was that another poster?

Virtual particles are real particles that appear and disappear out of "nothing". Of course now we are going to have to define "nothing". I have seen creationists try to redefine it after they realized that the old definition "no matter in a space" no longer works. By that definition something can come from nothing and has been observed.

 

[-57]

Yes, that is called an argument from ignorance. Your problem is that you have no understanding of quantum physics at all and you are discussing a more advanced topic in it. Didn't we go over virtual particles or was that another poster?

Virtual particles are real particles that appear and disappear out of "nothing". Of course now we are going to have to define "nothing". I have seen creationists try to redefine it after they realized that the old definition "no matter in a space" no longer works. By that definition something can come from nothing and has been observed.

It's amazing what you can prove when you move a definition. Your nothing in reality is something.

 

[bhsmte]

It's William Lane Craig. But you were close. Watch his debate with Sam Harris if you get a chance. He (Sam) talks at the beginning about all the emails he got from colleagues prior to the debate begging him "please brother, don't blow this" ha ha. WLC is the most feared debater out there. Dawkins won't chance it. But Sam held his own sort of and is extremely articulate.

Unfortunately for him he is a thorough-going determinist (so is Coyne by the way) who attempts to argue for objective morality based on intuitions. So a subjectivist who believes we are all 100% determined (though most of us don't know it) and that we can by consensus determine objective morality. Go figure. Anyway it's a good debate.

I've watched all his (Craigs) debates and he hasn't lost any, so I don't know why you would say all his arguments are debunked. But the beauty of a debate is that often there isn't a "winner" or a "loser". You just have an opportunity to make your best arguments and the listeners can decide who made the best case. Obviously there will be differing opinions.

You're always asking me for citations, could you please give me an example of the dishonest Christian debaters?

And you do have google. You can watch the Krauss debates, but I think they end up being 6 hours long total. A big time investment. Also the name of the Krauss/Dawkins movie is "The Unbelievers" I think. It's on YouTube.

Harris made Craig look like a fool, in their debate at Notre Dame. For much of the debate, Harris had students at Notre Dame, applauding him.

 

[USincognito]

For me what is funny....is how all the evos banter around these forums and still there isn't a single evolutionist who can explain how a so-called extremely rare beneficial mutations have the ability to accumulate in an animals progeny to the point that a new trait developes and is observed.

Not that we expect you to read or understand a word of it, but this paper breaks down, gene by gene, the changes that occurred during bat wing evolution.
http://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-11-619

The evolutionist are calling the creationist liars...yet they can't explain how evolutionism works.

Not an issue since "evolutionism" is a phantasm that exists only in the fevered imaginations of Creationists.

The human DNA has like 3.5 Billion base pairs and so-called beneficial mutations are a small fraction of a percent.

Yeah, so what? Individual base pairs don't "function", genes do. You might want to try comparing apple and apples if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[bhsmte]

One more where an actual physicist refutes the Kalam:

Slight language warning.

Come on now. He is Willie Craig, everything he says is proven fact. Didn't you know that?

 

[USincognito]

I am. Go ahead. Teach us how the eye evolved.

What kind? There is no "the eye".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Come on now. He is Willie Craig, everything he says is proven fact. Didn't you know that?

I think the way that Billy was bashed so thoroughly may have been a bit too much for Pater. He thought that atheists trembled at his name and he just found out that he is a laughing stock whose claims are no more valid than Kent Hovind's.

 

[USincognito]

I never said mutations don't occur.
My point was that for so-called beneficial mutations to occur to the point that the information in the DNA attributed for a particular trait increases to the vast sophistication seen today in the animal kingdom...is impossible.

Well. there we go folks. The personal incredulity of Some Dude On The Internet means everything we know about genetics is wrong. Shut down the labs, burn the papers, Some Dude On The Internet has spoken!

 

[USincognito]

YOUR problem....what are the odds that the second beneficial mutation will effect the coded DNA information that the previous beneficial mutation changed somewhere down the line of the species progeny?

You may try spending less time trying to sound sciency and more offering questions that cogent and clear.

 

[-57]

Not that we expect you to read or understand a word of it, but this paper breaks down, gene by gene, the changes that occurred during bat wing evolution.
http://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-11-619

So? They identified the genes that make a bat wing.
Evolution is barely mentioned in the article.

 

[USincognito]

I would cite that as an assumption, and probably a wrong assumption, based on your world view.

Wow. That is some weapons grade irony.

PF, looking back over the thread I don't think the point I was trying to make was clear so I'd like to revisit this (since the origin of life effect on evolution topic seems to have been left in the dust).

Using the magical word assumption, not once, but twice in a sentence, before assuming that someone was not a Christian is really Internet breaking irony. To reiterate my subsequent advice, you can see if the person to whom you are replying is a Christian or not by checking their profile and you might want to that before making any further assumptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So? They identified the genes that make a bat wing.
Evolution is barely mentioned in the article.

The article is about the evolution of the wing of the bat. The article is about a specific event in evolution. How often does a paper that deals with the a single event in the history of the U.S. need to remind you that the topic fits under the category "The history of the U.S."?