The best evidence against Evolution

[Norman321]

They come from Dave.

So you admit they had to have come from somewhere. They could not have come from nowhere.

 

[good brother]

You start with ecoli you end up with ecoli. No new species has been found, created or discovered. Even after 50,000 generations. You can have descent, you can have modification. There is no descent with modification.

Norman, let's not forget that the article says that there has been "hundreds of millions of mutations" and only a half dozen or so were considered beneficial, yet it is still Ecoli. Still E-coli after hundreds of millions of mutations. Still E-coli after hundreds of millions of mutations over 50,000 generations. I don't know if the evos are reading this post Norm, but I gotta think that little piece of knowledge has them worried. I mean, the fact that over the course of 50,000 generations and hundreds of millions of mutations, the fact that they still have E-coli in their petri dishes has got to have their precious theory in a tizzy.

Let's think about that for a moment. Norm, six beneficial mutations out of hundreds of millions mutations... what is that statistically? Like 0.000000000000something% success rate? I bet they didn't look at it like that. What do you think?

Let's look at another aspect of that test. Let's say that those 50,000 generations were people instead of E-coli. Assuming the average human generation is between twenty and thirty years, that would mean the very average is twentyfive. 25x50,000 = 1,250,000. That little test would represent 1.25 million years in humans if it were carried over from E-coli to humans. We know that after 50,000 generations and hundreds of millions of mutations, that the E-coli is still E-coli, that would mean that humans would still be humans 1.25 million years ago. But wait! "Modern humans" are supposed to have only arrived on the scene 200,000 years ago. That would have to mean that some kind of super-duper-ooper evolution occurred in the first 1 million years of the 1.25 million that would take us back to 50,000 generations ago. We know this because after 50,000 generations and "hundreds of millions of mutations" that the E-coli is still just as much an E-coli as it was at the beginning of the test!

GB

 

[CaliforniaSun]

So you admit they had to have come from somewhere. They could not have come from nowhere.

Or maybe it was Tom. But then again, I'm no expert.

 

[Split Rock]

God created everyone ever their kind. Even evos agree with this, they just use their own way to define kind. For example they say mammals can only produce mammals. A mammal can not produce a reptile.

So, define "kind" for us. Are mammals a "kind?"

 

[AV1611VET]

So, define "kind" for us.

Anything that has a common ancestor.

Are mammals a "kind?"

Kind of.

 

[selfinflikted]

What establishes the limits: Natural laws? Just where do you think the laws come from that regulate the universe?

Depends on what things you are talking about. Interstates have speed limits, but state laws dictate those. As far as natural laws are concerned, I don't look at it as "where did they come from," but rather, it just is. We have no evidence -none, whatsoever- that these "laws" were established by an entity or a god. Therefore, I don't assume they were. Simple as that.

 

[Split Rock]

Norman, let's not forget that the article says that there has been "hundreds of millions of mutations" and only a half dozen or so were considered beneficial, yet it is still Ecoli. Still E-coli after hundreds of millions of mutations. Still E-coli after hundreds of millions of mutations over 50,000 generations. I don't know if the evos are reading this post Norm, but I gotta think that little piece of knowledge has them worried. I mean, the fact that over the course of 50,000 generations and hundreds of millions of mutations, the fact that they still have E-coli in their petri dishes has got to have their precious theory in a tizzy.

Let's think about that for a moment. Norm, six beneficial mutations out of hundreds of millions mutations... what is that statistically? Like 0.000000000000something% success rate? I bet they didn't look at it like that. What do you think?

Let's look at another aspect of that test. Let's say that those 50,000 generations were people instead of E-coli. Assuming the average human generation is between twenty and thirty years, that would mean the very average is twentyfive. 25x50,000 = 1,250,000. That little test would represent 1.25 million years in humans if it were carried over from E-coli to humans. We know that after 50,000 generations and hundreds of millions of mutations, that the E-coli is still E-coli, that would mean that humans would still be humans 1.25 million years ago. But wait! "Modern humans" are supposed to have only arrived on the scene 200,000 years ago. That would have to mean that some kind of super-duper-ooper evolution occurred in the first 1 million years of the 1.25 million that would take us back to 50,000 generations ago. We know this because after 50,000 generations and "hundreds of millions of mutations" that the E-coli is still just as much an E-coli as it was at the beginning of the test!

GB

You are living in some fantasy world. Did you see on their website any indication of somekind of worry or the theory being in a "tizzy?' Yes or no, please.

Your numbers are funny... like a 5 year old would do math. Lets take a look at all your poor assumptions and conclusions:

1. Humans and bacteria don't mutate at the same rate. Bacteria mutate faster.
2. The vast majority of mutations were Neutral, as they always are.
3. Only mutations like they ones they described as beneficial would be selected for.
4. Therefore, your comparison makes no sense.

 

[Split Rock]

Anything that has a common ancestor.

So that would mean there is only one "kind" on earth.... I'm cool with that.

Kind of.

LOL!

 

[AV1611VET]

So that would mean there is only one "kind" on earth.... I'm cool with that.

I count 23 times the phrase "after his kind" appears in the Bible.

And if you're 'cool' with only one kind on earth, then are you saying we came from plants?

 

[Split Rock]

I count 23 times the phrase "after his kind" appears in the Bible.

According to your defintion, that would all be the same "kind."

 

[AV1611VET]

According to your defintion, that would all be the same "kind."

No, [probably] according to yours.

I believe evolution teaches that if you reverse-engineer life, you eventually would arrive at a single common ancestor; whereas in Genesis 1, there are several common ancestors.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

And if you're 'cool' with only one kind on earth, then are you saying we came from plants?

I'm sad to see you descend to the "amoeba turning into a horse" canard.

We share a common ancestor with plants, but our branches on the family tree diverged long ago.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

No, [probably] according to yours.

I believe evolution teaches that if you reverse-engineer life, you eventually would arrive at a single common ancestor; whereas in Genesis 1, there are several common ancestors.

Wouldn't we be able to find those common ancestors using science? There would be clear genetic distinctions between those coming from different kinds. But what we see lines up with a common ancestry of all life.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wouldn't we be able to find those common ancestors using science?

-- Are you kidding me!?

Um ... no.

Science is myopic.

There would be clear genetic distinctions between those coming from different kinds.

Okay -- I'll take your word for it.

But what we see lines up with a common ancestry of all life.

Assuming you leap over trillions and trillions of missing gaps?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

-- Are you kidding me!?

Um ... no.

Science is myopic.

Why is science myopic in this case? You put forth a testable claim -- that life diversified within several "kinds". IF such a thing were true, there would be a clear genetic barrier defining these kinds. Such a pattern would be obvious in a phylogenetic analysis.

Assuming you leap over trillions and trillions of missing gaps?

Feel free to show me where the genetic evidence is full of "gaps". I'm not a fossil guy, you won't get anywhere arguing with me about "missing links". I, like many others, argue that we don't need a single fossil to support evolution, because the genetic evidence is so strong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is science myopic in this case? You put forth a testable claim -- that life diversified within several "kinds". IF such a thing were true, there would be a clear genetic barrier defining these kinds. Such a pattern would be obvious in a phylogenetic analysis.

Wow!

-- I said/did all that!?

Looks like I need to pay the altar a visit, eh?

Feel free to show me where the genetic evidence is full of "gaps".

Forget that!

 

[good brother]

You are living in some fantasy world. Did you see on their website any indication of somekind of worry or the theory being in a "tizzy?' Yes or no, please.

Of course they're not in a tizzy, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be.

Your numbers are funny... like a 5 year old would do math.

What was funny about my numbers?

Lets take a look at all your poor assumptions and conclusions:

1. Humans and bacteria don't mutate at the same rate. Bacteria mutate faster.

You do realize that it's a bigger problem that humans mutate much slower than bacteria, don't you? They have had hundreds of millions of mutations and the are still E-coli. How many mutations would be needed to turn an "ape" (or rather an ape like creature) into a human if hundreds of millions of mutations still havent turned E-coli into anything other than E-coli? hundreds of thousands of trillions of trillions? How are you going to have all those mutations take place in the tiny window that primates "first appeared" and now? And you don't just need hundreds of thousands of trillions and trillions, you need hundreds of thousands of trillions and trillions of BENEFICIAL mutations!

2. The vast majority of mutations were Neutral, as they always are.

So there should be alot more in the fossil record showing all sorts of mutations, not just the handful that's supposed. Remember "hundreds of millions of mutations" were present. If the vast majority (a vast understatement too, btw. Six beneficial out of hudreds of millions does not help your argument in the slightest) were neutral, then how many more are needed to actually benefit the creature? Trillions of trillions of trillions!!!!

3. Only mutations like they ones they described as beneficial would be selected for.

How did that occur in nature? Who decided which would be beneficial and therefore selected?

4. Therefore, your comparison makes no sense.

Look again.

In Christ, GB

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Wow!

-- I said/did all that!?

Looks like I need to pay the altar a visit, eh?


Forget that!

So in reality, you just like making bold claims and retreating on them when people bring up the possibility of testing them.

You know, it isn't a fair discussion when you get to make pot-shot and then run for cover. I have a feeling you are not here for discussion anymore, but rather to chant your slogans.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have a feeling you are not here for discussion anymore, but rather to chant your slogans.

Is that what you call basic doctrine? chanting slogans?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Is that what you call basic doctrine? chanting slogans?

Basic doctrine belongs in the General Theology forums. We discuss science here.