Some things I just don't think most of you understand...

[Loudmouth]

No, Bob's genes will never become part of Alex's genes, unless Alex's descendant's mate with Bob's descendant's. Your scenario works only when there are less than a population of 50 or so. Once the population increases beyond this - any mutation that occurs in one lineage will NEVER become set in the population.

I already gave you the equations. For a diploid genome, the chances that a mutation will become fixed is 1/2n where n is the size the population. There are new mutations in this generation that will unavoidably become fixed in a future generation. The odds support it.

Also, a steady population ensures that people with the same ancestors will meet up at some point and have children.

This is what you are missing - that there can be no large numbers of universal ancestors. If the population is large - Bob's genes will never become part of the general population. Bob's descendants will never mate with the entire population to spread his genes to them, if the population starts with greater than 50 individuals.

Why not?

You know - all Asians remain Asian - despite the variations within that breed.

All Chihuahuas stay chiahuahuas, yet they came from wolves. Your examples are so easy to refute.

 

[bhsmte]

If I do than it applies to me also that I would be guilty of what I judge them for and I would be telling on myself. The police are trained and know how to get people to convict themselves.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[The Cadet]

No, Bob's genes will never become part of Alex's genes, unless Alex's descendant's mate with Bob's descendant's.

Welll... Yeah. They do. And with Steve's, and with John's, and with Bob's again! Like I said, incest is kind of a mathematical necessity given the sheer number of ancestors you must have had. Did you read the papers I linked you? Should I find some others?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1204646/
http://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=2638922&fileOId=2638934
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0040580984900273

I dunno man, you tell me. How much science are you going to ignore?

Your scenario works only when there are less than a population of 50 or so. Once the population increases beyond this - any mutation that occurs in one lineage will NEVER become set in the population.

A basic assertion with a number pulled directly out of thin air that is completely wrong. Want to try actually reading the research on the subject before shooting your mouth off?

This is what you are missing - that there can be no large numbers of universal ancestors. If the population is large - Bob's genes will never become part of the general population. Bob's descendants will never mate with the entire population to spread his genes to them, if the population starts with greater than 50 individuals.

http://evolution.gs.washington.edu/popgen/popg.html

You can straight-up simulate this sort of thing to discover that, as a matter of fact, you're totally wrong. These alleles spread throughout the population quite rapidly. Again, why would you make these completely false claims? You seem to think you know a lot about population genetics. I hate to break it to you, buddy, but you don't.

Have you even bothered to study the science of bone growth?

Ontogeny is its own field within Paleontology, and the fact that you don't know that speaks words to your understanding of the issue. Indeed, as you already know, I emailed Jack Horner, and got this back:

...So you tell me.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

A clean up was done in this thread.

Flaming, profanity and blasphemy are not acceptable and will result in warnings or ban.

Please be aware of that.

 

[dad]

Evolution is a process not a religion. ...

There would be no creation evolution debate if that were true. Obviously the godless take the God given evolving process we now see, and claim it is responsible for mankind existing and life we know on earth. Be honest.

 

[Tina W]

No parents ever gave birth to a child they did not recognize. That's important.

LOL! I'm not sure about that! My mom said when I was born I looked Chinese she thought they had mixed me up with someone else's child. LOL!

 

[paulm50]

There is a lot of truth mixed in with a lot of error. Evolution does not have any practical application so there is no pressure to keep them honest.

Slam dunks your theory of no practical application.

 

[paulm50]

There would be no creation evolution debate if that were true. Obviously the godless take the God given evolving process we now see, and claim it is responsible for mankind existing and life we know on earth. Be honest.

And believers have to believe god created us, to have a religion. Be honest.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Evolution has yet to show two extremely important things:

--How life began in the first place (the typical response will be, "that's abiogenesis not evolution" instead of just conceding they do not know)

--Where humans fit in evolution (there is no plausible explanation as to what mutations or feats of evolution transformed our ancestors to us in such a rapid time period)

The two key things really that are the most crucial of the theory of evolution as opposed to creationism has gone without answers.

 

[paulm50]

 

[paulm50]

Evolution has yet to show two extremely important things:

--How life began in the first place (the typical response will be, "that's abiogenesis not evolution" instead of just conceding they do not know)

--Where humans fit in evolution (there is no plausible explanation as to what mutations or feats of evolution transformed our ancestors to us in such a rapid time period)

The two key things really that are the most crucial of the theory of evolution as opposed to creationism has gone without answers.

Good point, but falling back on what's yet to be discovered. Has nothing to do with religion as we know it. All religions have given an account of how we were created, all claiming to be the words of their gods. AND all are wrong.

When we discover how the first cell developed it's skin, to my knowledge that's the only gap, believers will fall back on what created the big bang, then what created that.

Because the 6 day myth is no longer plausible even as a myth.

 

[joshua 1 9]

And believers have to believe god created us, to have a religion. Be honest.

Not really. Deists like Einstein believe that God created the natural laws, yet the people that do not believe God created the natural laws are still bound to those laws. Your lack of belief in God does not mean you are no longer subject to gravity, centrifugal force or perpetual motion. Your life is still governed by these forces. Now we know this is how God Created us. Molecular Chemistry deals with the laws governing the interaction between molecules. If you believe God creates those molecular laws or not does not change the fact that it is these laws that formed us. As the Bible says He formed us in our mothers womb. Science helps us to understand How God Formed us.

Darwin was trained in Science and Religion. He may have rejected his religious training on a personal level but this was still a driving force in his life. Religion was very important to Charles Lyell and it was his theory of uniformitarianism that allowed Darwin to develop his Evolutionary theory. Irreducible complexity was an argument that was around long before Darwin joined the scene. It was actually this dialog that made up a lot of the substance of his book. A lot of what Darwin did was to support the arguments against the established religion of his day. So a lot of his theory would never have been developed if the debate did not cause him to think about the things he wrote in his book. We would perhaps still have a discussion on the variation in the Beaks of the Finches. But certainly Darwin would not be talking about the complexity of the eye and the complexity of life in general if it were not for the Christian theory of irreducible complexity. A lot of the substance of Darwin's theory is based on this discussion and debate. Which all comes down to the fact that God has given us two sources of understanding. The natural record and revelation knowledge in our Bible. We need both and it is always a disaster when you try to depend or put your hope in just one or the other. Francis Collins is the leading evolutionist right now and he understands the importance of understand all of different roads to discovery today.

Eldredge (Gould), Collins and Darwin all have one thing in common, they wrote popular books that have or had an impact. The fact that Darwin is still having an impact 100 years later I am sure would excite him as much as he was excited to learn that his book and therefore his ideas were having an impact in other countries outside of England. Actually Darwin is little more than an antiquated relic, still people like keeping old things around and it gives them a degree of comfort. Trail blazers like to take an established route and make it wider so more people can follow them. They are really not given over to going where 'no man has ever gone before' and they are not so much inclined to want to join 'brave new worlds'.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Because the 6 day myth is no longer plausible even as a myth.

Moses and Peter BOTH talk about how a day is 1000 years. If we go back 13000 years we see that the glaciers are melting, there is a change in the level of the Ocean and basicly God is building a new world from what remains of the old frozen over world. The Bible says to rebuild and replenish. There is clearly no 'myth' involved. What the Bible talks about is 'shadows and types' and you along with many others do not seem to understand how this works. Perhaps it has not been given to you to understand. Perhaps your just not able to comprehend God and the things of God.

"Let us break their chains and throw off their shackles."
The One enthroned in Heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.
psalm 2:4,5

 

[asherahSamaria]

Moses and Peter BOTH talk about how a day is 1000 years. If we go back 13000 years we see that the glaciers are melting, there is a change in the level of the Ocean and basicly God is building a new world from what remains of the old frozen over world. The Bible says to rebuild and replenish. There is clearly no 'myth' involved. What the Bible talks about is 'shadows and types' and you along with many others do not seem to understand how this works. Perhaps it has not been given to you to understand. Perhaps your just not able to comprehend God and the things of God.

"Moses and Peter BOTH talk about how a day is 1000 years" Even applying that formula comes nowhere near to the truth of the earth being 4.5 billion years old. Unfortunately the primitive myth makers had no concept of the deep time that is actually involved.

 

[joshua 1 9]

"Moses and Peter BOTH talk about how a day is 1000 years" Even applying that formula comes nowhere near to the truth of the earth being 4.5 billion years old. Unfortunately the primitive myth makers had no concept of the deep time that is actually involved.

That is a different theory. Some call it the day age theory, meaning a day in the Bible represents a geological age. Generally that falls under OEC or Old Earth Creationism. I usually am not very quick to want to defend OEC because it could mean that the days had a different length. So I avoid it because it is just to difficult to try to explain and to defend. You can run a google search to find a better explanation.

 

[paulm50]

Not really. Deists like Einstein believe that God created the natural laws, yet the people that do not believe God created the natural laws are still bound to those laws. Your lack of belief in God does not mean you are no longer subject to gravity, centrifugal force or perpetual motion. Your life is still governed by these forces. Now we know this is how God Created us. Molecular Chemistry deals with the laws governing the interaction between molecules. If you believe God creates those molecular laws or not does not change the fact that it is these laws that formed us. As the Bible says He formed us in our mothers womb. Science helps us to understand How God Formed us.

Darwin was trained in Science and Religion. He may have rejected his religious training on a personal level but this was still a driving force in his life. Religion was very important to Charles Lyell and it was his theory of uniformitarianism that allowed Darwin to develop his Evolutionary theory. Irreducible complexity was an argument that was around long before Darwin joined the scene. It was actually this dialog that made up a lot of the substance of his book. A lot of what Darwin did was to support the arguments against the established religion of his day. So a lot of his theory would never have been developed if the debate did not cause him to think about the things he wrote in his book. We would perhaps still have a discussion on the variation in the Beaks of the Finches. But certainly Darwin would not be talking about the complexity of the eye and the complexity of life in general if it were not for the Christian theory of irreducible complexity. A lot of the substance of Darwin's theory is based on this discussion and debate. Which all comes down to the fact that God has given us two sources of understanding. The natural record and revelation knowledge in our Bible. We need both and it is always a disaster when you try to depend or put your hope in just one or the other. Francis Collins is the leading evolutionist right now and he understands the importance of understand all of different roads to discovery today.

Eldredge (Gould), Collins and Darwin all have one thing in common, they wrote popular books that have or had an impact. The fact that Darwin is still having an impact 100 years later I am sure would excite him as much as he was excited to learn that his book and therefore his ideas were having an impact in other countries outside of England. Actually Darwin is little more than an antiquated relic, still people like keeping old things around and it gives them a degree of comfort. Trail blazers like to take an established route and make it wider so more people can follow them. They are really not given over to going where 'no man has ever gone before' and they are not so much inclined to want to join 'brave new worlds'.

Einstein was another step in science, a big one.

Taking the Natural World and attributing it to god, is an old one. The ancients thought the frequency of the rain, sun, wind, and anything natural, was down to god. All the people had to do was give more to the priests.

Fooled them, doesn't fool many now.

Yes we have moved on from Darwin, we haven't moved back to Genesis. We have proven Darwin right, except it's more about births than deaths.

 

[paulm50]

That is a different theory. Some call it the day age theory, meaning a day in the Bible represents a geological age. Generally that falls under OEC or Old Earth Creationism. I usually am not very quick to want to defend OEC because it could mean that the days had a different length. So I avoid it because it is just to difficult to try to explain and to defend. You can run a google search to find a better explanation.

It still does not explain why it took so long for a gor to put something in "His image" to carry his religion. So long.

And why it took the Jews 300,000 years to realise they had their own god.

 

[dad]

And believers have to believe god created us, to have a religion. Be honest.

And belief in God is presented as a belief. So called science was presented as fact and science. Big difference.

 

[dad]

Taking the Natural World and attributing it to god, is an old one. .

Limiting the universe to the physical only part of natural has been around a long time too. There is more.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It still does not explain why it took so long for a gor to put something in "His image" to carry his religion. So long. And why it took the Jews 300,000 years to realise they had their own god.

Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago. Jews is a derogatory term from the holocaust. I am not quite sure what you mean by 'gor'. If people do not show proper respect then I may not respond to their questions.