Satanic High Priest's Claim About The Origin Of Evolution

[sfs]

2 Peter 3:6 Οπότε ο κόσμος που ήταν τότε, ξεχειλισμένος από νερό, χάθηκε:

That's not 2 Peter 3:6, which reads, δι' ὧν ὁ τότε κόσμος ὕδατι κατακλυσθεὶς ἀπώλετο.

 

[sfs]

"Suppose a chance mutation occurs and eventually all three alleles have..." is a massive supposition, friend.

We see new mutations arise all the time and we see alleles change frequency all the time. Such a large change in frequency will occur over a long period of time unless the population is small or the allele is beneficial, both of which we also see routinely. If you really know this little about genetics, why are you making confident statements about it?

 

[The Barbarian]

That's not 2 Peter 3:6, which reads, δι' ὧν ὁ τότε κόσμος ὕδατι κατακλυσθεὶς ἀπώλετο.

My bad. I should avoid translating when it comes to Greek. It's close, no?

 

[Phoneman-777]

You still don't get it. Information is just the uncertainty of a message you haven't yet seen. Let's go over the basics:
1. if you are absolutely sure what an incoming message will say, the information in it is 0. You learn nothing from the message.

2. If you are somewhat uncertain as to what the message will be, the message will be a number between 1.0 and 0, but will not include 1.0 and 0.

In information theory, the entropy of a random variable is the average level of "information", "surprise", or "uncertainty" inherent to the variable's possible outcomes.

Where H is information and there are x alleles in the population.

Does that mean that random things like scrabble letters tossed on a surface have information? Yep. In fact, they have a great amount of information, more than a proper sentence would have. You might have to think about that for a bit to realize why. But if you can't see it, then I'll explain. Let me know.

So a new allele could be the result of a point mutation, and it might do something or it might no. As I said, you have about 100 mutations that were present in neither of your parents. Because proteins are so large, one amino acid switched out usually don't do anything measurable. But it's still new information and it increases the information in the population genome.


The origin is in mutations. That was Mendel's discovery.

Right. That was Darwin's great discovery. Random mutation and natural selection. It's been directly observed to work. Would you like to learn about that?


You might think so, but of course, you aren't Jesus. Remember, He created things to work this way. So I'm pretty sure He wouldn't agree with you.

Did you ever see "Dumb and Dumber" when Lloyd asked Mary if his chances with her were 1 out of a 100 and she replied, "More like 1 out of 1,000,000".......and he ridiculously replied, "So, you're tellin' me there's a chance?!!"

You see, the math does show that there's a chance that Lloyd ends up with Mary, despite the fact that he's broke, looks like a doofus, and has an IQ of a toaster, while she's rich, a knockout, and already married...but does anyone other than a raving lunatic actually believe Lloyd can end up with Mary, barring some miracle of God?

Likewise, it's not reasonable to take what are essentially mathematical impossibilities and employ them as "evidence" for why evolution is possible.

How impossible? Listen to this former atheist scientist who instructed post-graduate PhDs in the inner workings of evolution regarding Biology, Genetics, Zoology, etc., speak on it in this short video:

 

[Phoneman-777]

We see new mutations arise all the time and we see alleles change frequency all the time. Such a large change in frequency will occur over a long period of time unless the population is small or the allele is beneficial, both of which we also see routinely. If you really know this little about genetics, why are you making confident statements about it?

Satanic High Priest's Claim About The Origin Of Evolution

2 Peter 3:6 Οπότε ο κόσμος που ήταν τότε, ξεχειλισμένος από νερό, χάθηκε: That's not 2 Peter 3:6, which reads, δι' ὧν ὁ τότε κόσμος ὕδατι κατακλυσθεὶς ἀπώλετο.

www.christianforums.com

 

[The Barbarian]

Did you ever see "Dumb and Dumber" when Lloyd asked Mary if his chances with her were 1 out of a 100 and she replied, "More like 1 out of 1,000,000".......and he ridiculously replied, "So, you're tellin' me there's a chance?!!"

Your chances aren't that good.

You see, the math does show that there's a chance that Lloyd ends up with Mary, despite the fact that he's broke, looks like a doofus, and has an IQ of a toaster, while she's rich, a knockout, and already married...but does anyone other than a raving lunatic actually believe Lloyd can end up with Mary, barring some miracle of God?

Which is why in this case, it would be the analogue to something like 99.99% sure of the message. Which would then mean the information would be very close to 0.0. Good example.

Likewise, it's not reasonable to take what are essentially mathematical impossibilities and employ them as "evidence" for why evolution is possible.

Since evolution is an observed phenomenon, that's not necessary. We know the likelihood for evolution. It's 1.0. Remember when I showed you that your major issue is not knowing what evolution is? It just tripped you, again.

How impossible?

Seems pretty foolish to deny something that is observed constantly around us. I'm guessing you YouTuber is like you, and has no idea what evolution is. As I said, most likely, he's confused evolution with agencies of evolution like natural selection, or consequences of evolution like common descent. But just to be sure, why not show us what you think is his most compelling argument, and we'll see how it goes?

On the other hand, if you don't understand the issue well enough to bring it up here, what makes you think he's got it right?

I've seen this story before...."It has to be true! I saw it on YouTube!"

 

[The Barbarian]

How impossible?

Here's how to tell:
Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it thoroughly, and then deal out the cards one at a time, noting the order. The likelihood of that result is 1 divided by 52!. 1/Fifty-two factorial is about:
0 .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000123
And yet every time you try this, you get an equally unlikely result.

If you take your genes, given the genes of all your great-great-great grandparents, you are several degrees of magnitude less likely than that.

So your ambitious YouTuber just "proved" that you and shuffled decks are so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.

Does that give you a hint as to why the probability argument against evolution amuses mathematicians so much?

 

[Phoneman-777]

Your chances aren't that good.

Which is why in this case, it would be the analogue to something like 99.99% sure of the message. Which would then mean the information would be very close to 0.0. Good example.


Since evolution is an observed phenomenon, that's not necessary. We know the likelihood for evolution. It's 1.0. Remember when I showed you that your major issue is not knowing what evolution is? It just tripped you, again.


Seems pretty foolish to deny something that is observed constantly around us. I'm guessing you YouTuber is like you, and has no idea what evolution is. As I said, most likely, he's confused evolution with agencies of evolution like natural selection, or consequences of evolution like common descent. But just to be sure, why not show us what you think is his most compelling argument, and we'll see how it goes?

On the other hand, if you don't understand the issue well enough to bring it up here, what makes you think he's got it right?

I've seen this story before...."It has to be true! I saw it on YouTube!"

Macro-evolution has never been observed, so please stop claiming it has. Everytime I give you evidence for why it hasn't, you gloss over.

For instance, I've shown you several times that even the areas with the slowest rates of erosion and uplift, these should have been washed into the ocean many times over, forever erasing the entire fossil record, but you stubbornly insist that's not the case because you have no choice - though your evolutionist comrades call your defense "an embarrassment to all the commonly accepted models of landscape development". (C. R. Twidale, "On the Survival of Paleoforms", American Journal of Science, January 1976)

You surmise that all critics of evolution are ignorant of its inner workings - if you watch the video clip I posted, you'll see that God did not strike Dr. Veith with "anti-atheist amnesia" leaving him ignorant of how evolution is claimed to work. The only "ignorance" I see is on the part of those who refuse to objectively examine scholarly criticism of evolution, not those who've been bombarded with evolution at every societal turn.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Here's how to tell:
Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it thoroughly, and then deal out the cards one at a time, noting the order. The likelihood of that result is 1 divided by 52!. 1/Fifty-two factorial is about:
0 .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000123
And yet every time you try this, you get an equally unlikely result.

If you take your genes, given the genes of all your great-great-great grandparents, you are several degrees of magnitude less likely than that.

So your ambitious YouTuber just "proved" that you and shuffled decks are so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.

Does that give you a hint as to why the probability argument against evolution amuses mathematicians so much?

Did you watch the video? Did you see the incredible amount of faith it takes to believe such improbabilities are probable?

I've decided I need to pray intently for you, that our Creator would arouse you from what I believe is error, and I regret not doing so sooner. I want to see you in heaven and say, "Ah, don't mention it" when you thank me profusely for what I know God will do for you, and then we'll worship every Sabbath before God and be forever reminded of His 7 day creation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Did you watch the video? Did you see the incredible amount of faith it takes to believe such improbabilities are probable?

How do you think I so easily refuted his idea? There is, of course, another, less mathematical goof he made. You see, his calculations also depend on events being random. As you learned earlier, Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.

I've decided I need to pray intently for you

Thanks. I can always use prayer. I'll pray for you too.

"Your faith in God should be a net, not a sharp stick."

from what I believe is error

That's the great thing. Even if you deny the way He created species, it won't affect your salvation, unless you make an idol of it, and insist that other Christians must believe it to be saved. So long as you don't do that, God doesn't care what you think of the way He did it.

I really hope you will be saved. If nothing else, it will be interesting to see the look on your face when you realize who else is there with you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Macro-evolution has never been observed, so please stop claiming it has.

Wrong:

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/Genetics/Genetics-1935-20-4-377.pdf

Even some creationist organizations admit that new species, genera, and sometimes families evolve from others.

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

Speciation

Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action. Rather, it demonstrates the incredible variety God put within each created kind.

answersingenesis.org

They just don't want to call it "evolution." But as you now realize, it is evolution by definition.

Everytime I give you evidence for why it hasn't, you gloss over.

Your own guys undercut you on this one. Sorry.

For instance, I've shown you several times that even the areas with the slowest rates of erosion and uplift, these should have been washed into the ocean many times over, forever erasing the entire fossil record

I showed you that your error was in assuming that erosion is constant over the whole earth and that there is no deposition of sediment anywhere, among other misconceptions. If you thought about it for a bit, I think you'd see why that would be impossible.

though your evolutionist comrades call your defense "an embarrassment to all the commonly accepted models of landscape development"

Guess how I know you didn't actually read his article. Would you like me to show it to you?

You surmise that all critics of evolution are ignorant of its inner workings

You, for example, have not been able to even tell us what it is, much less know it's "inner workings." However, many such critics do know something about it. Creationist Dr. Todd Wood, Michael Behe, Michael Denton, and others are able to understand it. But you don't.

if you watch the video clip I posted, you'll see that God did not strike Dr. Veith with "anti-atheist amnesia" leaving him ignorant of how evolution is claimed to work.

For example, he assumed it was random. And the most important part of Darwin's discovery was that it isn't random. So yes, he's more than a little ignorant of the subject.

 

[sfs]

My bad. I should avoid translating when it comes to Greek. It's close, no?

Dunno. I assume it's modern Greek, which I don't know.

 

[The Barbarian]

Dunno. I assume it's modern Greek, which I don't know.

I don't know Koine Greek; I figured it was pretty close to modern Greek. My bad.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

It's common sense really, and not sensational. Half-baked evolution ideas as well as poetic insights have been current for thousands of years. Of course groups of people gather and propose moves dressed up or not dressed up in some overt trappings spooky, impressive, fashionable or whatever. Whether they were superstitious and what they were up to was up to them: perhaps God will help them sort it out on the last day.

Chronology is tentative estimates (no matter on what kind of grounds). Knocking a couple of billion off here or a few hundred thousand off there, or a few dozen somewhere else, doesn't make one a "young earther".

When some forms of life were eliminated, others exapted to fill the remaining ecosystem. The two halves of that sentence are what is actually meant by "natural means of selection" and it doesn't explain why or how any forms suddenly found themselves "fittest" and surviving (all surviving were "fittest"), making the slogans sort-of true after all but only if by effort understood.

This doesn't explain humanity, not even in our mammalian dimension, and that was considered subordinate until materialist moralisers projected guilt onto us.

Hunches or intuitions aren't whole answers, they are meant to start investigation and inference.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Contingency is neither predetermination nor random, and respects individuality.

 

[sfs]

Hunches or intuitions aren't whole answers, they are meant to start investigation and inference.

Are you aware that there is an entire field of science devoted to investigating evolution and making inferences about it?

 

[The Barbarian]

When some forms of life were eliminated, others exapted to fill the remaining ecosystem. The two halves of that sentence are what is actually meant by "natural means of selection" and it doesn't explain why or how any forms suddenly found themselves "fittest" and surviving (all surviving were "fittest"), making the slogans sort-of true after all but only if by effort understood.

Not bad, but a few comments.
1. Not all that survive are the fittest. There's only a tendency for the fit to survive. Over time that's the trend. But it can go the other way. That's what extinction is about.

And until genetics, it wasn't really clear how natural selection worked in the details. Darwin only knew that it did, just as Wegener knew that continents had moved, even if he had no idea how. When the mechanisms became clear, those theories were much more solidly accepted.

 

[The Barbarian]

This doesn't explain humanity, not even in our mammalian dimension, and that was considered subordinate until materialist moralisers projected guilt onto us.

Nature can't explain humanity, because we are more than mere bodies. God directly gives us our souls.

 

[pgp_protector]

Here's how to tell:
Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it thoroughly, and then deal out the cards one at a time, noting the order. The likelihood of that result is 1 divided by 52!. 1/Fifty-two factorial is about:
0 .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000123
And yet every time you try this, you get an equally unlikely result.

If you take your genes, given the genes of all your great-great-great grandparents, you are several degrees of magnitude less likely than that.

So your ambitious YouTuber just "proved" that you and shuffled decks are so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.

Does that give you a hint as to why the probability argument against evolution amuses mathematicians so much?

Reminds me of this infographic,
You can't exist (according to the "odds" )

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Not all that survive are the fittest. There's only a tendency for the fit to survive. Over time that's the trend. But it can go the other way. That's what extinction is about. 1

And until genetics, it wasn't really clear how natural selection worked in the details. Darwin only knew that it did, just as Wegener knew that continents had moved, even if he had no idea how. When the mechanisms became clear, those theories were much more solidly accepted. 2

1 - I agree with your three middle sentences, and the first if you mean it as you might. My rhetoric was aimed at the usual "explanation" ignoring mass eliminations contingently happening sometimes (did the valuation "fittest" match the population before, or after, the elimination of those not remaining?) Thus this is what some extinction is about.

2 - As more information arrives, inferences develop greatly. Genetics and epigenetics do relate to some survival and extinction. Contingent elimination was a major means of "selection" (e.g non selection of the non selected) at some time.