Science leads materialist atheist to reject atheism

[loveofourlord]

You guys are forgetting that mutations happen at the DNA level, which exposes another reason why evolution is impossible. Random mutations as observed in science have always resulted into a destructive change on the genes, instead of a reconstructive mutation that requires multiple changes in different places of the gene sequence.

Unless SOMEBODY is deliberately and intelligently doing the changes in the gene sequence, the results of mutations would always be a dead end (literally) if you rely on things to accidentally happen at random.

If your going to repeat a creationist lie might want to make sure it's not the best known ones. So your saying you have 200 or so destrctuve changes to your DNA? Wow I don't....must be a fluke with you. This is one of the creationists lies/nonsense they love to tell you guys, EVERY person has hundreds of mutations, most mutations are actually neutral, the fatal ones usually don't last long enough to be born or survive long after birth. So get weeded out, if you want to talk about mutations learn what they actually are.

A bad mutation in the heart development means the fetus doesn't developed, and so on. Humans have messed things up a bit since some mutations that wouldn't survive in the wild do, which is okay, but many humans wouldn't have survived with their problematic mutations.

 

[covid-19v1]

My son is a better runner than I was.

Anyway, can you tell us where you're getting your information from? We need to contact them to tell them that they have it wrong. We don't want misinformation being spread around. We actually need to make sure they aren't doing it intentionally. Can you tell us?

Are you saying your son is a product of a random mutation? Does he walk upright, or walk on 4 legs?

 

[covid-19v1]

So your saying you have 200 or so destrctuve changes to your DNA? Wow I don't....must be a fluke with you.

You must have mistaken me for someone else.

 

[Bradskii]

Are you saying your son is a product of a random mutation? Does he walk upright, or walk on 4 legs?

I'm not sure that you know enough about this subject to engage in a sensible discussion. Asking silly questions only confirms my initial impression.

 

[Yttrium]

You guys are forgetting that mutations happen at the DNA level, which exposes another reason why evolution is impossible. Random mutations as observed in science have always resulted into a destructive change on the genes, instead of a reconstructive mutation that requires multiple changes in different places of the gene sequence.

Unless SOMEBODY is deliberately and intelligently doing the changes in the gene sequence, the results of mutations would always be a dead end (literally) if you rely on things to accidentally happen at random.

Ha ha no. I mean, you can have a mutation that changes your eye color. Is that destructive? No. You could have a mutation that makes your legs a little longer, or your ears a little smaller. You could have a mutation that does nothing at all because it's in junk DNA. There are mutations that can be useful in certain circumstances, and mutations that can be harmful.

Saying that random mutations as observed in science have always resulted in destructive changes on the genes is obviously a lie, considering the vast amount of research out there that contradicts you.

 

[covid-19v1]

I'm not sure that you know enough about this subject to engage in a sensible discussion. Asking silly questions only confirms my initial impression.

I'm trying to stay on topic with the subject of evolution. If you insist on going that route, you would find yourself agreeing to the fact the planet's lifespan would not be enough to give evolution time to get where we are now.

 

[covid-19v1]

Ha ha no. I mean, you can have a mutation that changes your eye color. Is that destructive? No. You could have a mutation that makes your legs a little longer, or your ears a little smaller. You could have a mutation that does nothing at all because it's in junk DNA. There are mutations that can be useful in certain circumstances, and mutations that can be harmful.

Saying that random mutations as observed in science have always resulted in destructive changes on the genes is obviously a lie, considering the vast amount of research out there that contradicts you.

You are mixing adaptation in the argument. That's different from evolution. Change in eye color, skin color, hair color, etc. is due to adaptation.

 

[Yttrium]

You are mixing adaptation in the argument. That's different from evolution. Change in eye color, skin color, hair color, etc. is due to adaptation.

No, I'm not mixing it. Your "adaptation" does not exist in biology. It's a creationist handwave that makes no biologic sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

agreed. But I do have quite a bit of knowledge about it - and the OP is about an atheist neurosurgeon rejecting it based on "observations in nature" -- to the point of becoming Christian. You can't blame me for what atheists decide to do.

No, you really do not. You keep demonstrating that in your posts here. If you did actually know then you would have been lying in some cases. I do not think that you have been lying. You merely keep yourself ignorant.

AS to the OP, you use a known lying source. And your so called expert was a self admitted non-expert. He was also convinced by a widely debunked work.

The question is why can't you find any honest sources that support your claims?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm trying to stay on topic with the subject of evolution. If you insist on going that route, you would find yourself agreeing to the fact the planet's lifespan would not be enough to give evolution time to get where we are now.

Why do you think that? The rates of evolution can be measured and there does not appear to be any contradiction. I am waiting with bated breath for your articles from well respected professional peer reviewed journals.

 

[covid-19v1]

No, I'm not mixing it. Your "adaptation" does not exist in biology. It's a creationist handwave that makes no biologic sense.

"My adaptation" is supported by historical facts. Take India, for example....Indians who have been living in its southern states developed dark skins, while those who have been living at northern area have light skins.

 

[loveofourlord]

You must have mistaken me for someone else.

No you have hundreds of mutations FACT so by your logic you must have 200 destructive mutations.

 

[covid-19v1]

Why do you think that? The rates of evolution can be measured and there does not appear to be any contradiction. I am waiting with bated breath for your articles from well respected professional peer reviewed journals.

You don't need the experts to figure this out. All you need to do is list all the multiple required simultaneous random miraculously lucky stages of mutations. And you will quickly realize 3 billion years would not be enough of a time if all these life on earth came up from evolution. Even forever would not be enough.

 

[covid-19v1]

No you have hundreds of mutations FACT so by your logic you must have 200 destructive mutations.

It's as simple as going back to the previous posts.

 

[Bradskii]

You are mixing adaptation in the argument. That's different from evolution. Change in eye color, skin color, hair color, etc. is due to adaptation.

Adaption is different from evolution? This is not going to go well for you.

'Adaptation:
The adjustment or changes in behavior, physiology, and structure of an organism to become more suited to an environment. According to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation.' https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/definitions

Please don't misconstrue this with Lamarkism. Please don't do that...

 

[Yttrium]

"My adaptation" is supported by historical facts. Take India, for example....Indians who have been living in its southern states developed dark skins, while those who have been living at northern area have light skins.

An example of a beneficial mutation right there. Evolution in action. Increased melanin levels help protect the skin in hotter climates.

 

[adrianmonk]

"My adaptation" is supported by historical facts. Take India, for example....Indians who have been living in its southern states developed dark skins, while those who have been living at northern area have light skins.

How many years does it take for this adaptation to occur ? Is it in 10s of generations, 100s ?

 

[Bradskii]

How many years does it take for this adaptation to occur ? Is it in 10s of generations, 100s ?

From wiki (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color):

'Research by Nina Jablonski suggests that an estimated time of about 10,000 to 20,000 years is enough for human populations to achieve optimal skin pigmentation in a particular geographic area but that development of ideal skin coloration may happen faster if the evolutionary pressure is stronger, even in as little as 100 generations. The length of time is also affected by cultural practices such as food intake, clothing, body coverings, and shelter usage which can alter the ways in which the environment affects populations.'

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't need the experts to figure this out. All you need to do is list all the multiple required simultaneous random miraculously lucky stages of mutations. And you will quickly realize 3 billion years would not be enough of a time if all these life on earth came up from evolution. Even forever would not be enough.

You made two huge errors. First it looks like you think that people as we know them now was the goal. Evolution does not have that sort of goal. Once we get rid of that strawman the rest is easy. There were no "miraculous mutations". There were only mutations.

You should look into the lottery analogy. The odds that one particular person would win the lottery can be hundreds of millions to one. The odds that someone would win is almost one. Your common sense fails because you do not understand evolution.

 

[NxNW]

To evolve into a creature reproducing sexually, countless of complementary simultaneous lucky mutations would have needed to happen at the perfect exact time.

You don't simply need two complementary sex organs, but also every elements required in the reproductive process. This includes all the required elements of the female side (ovary, eggs, room in the belly, the system for nourishment of the fetus, the system for nourishment after delivery, timing of delivery, PMS cycle, etc.), and all the required elements on the male side (sperm development, erection requirement for the genital to make it usable, psycho trigger interface with the brain that keeps it from erection when not needed, etc).

This is utterly false.