When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

[Jimmy D]

There is,no hubris in accepting God at his word. The hubris lies with man who says God is a liar.

Let God be true and every man a,liar.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Who said God was a liar? Stop making things up, why would an atheist attribute any qualities to something they don't believe in? Do you think Unicorns are evil?

I appreciate that you refuse to believe it, but all the evidence of the natural world points to an old earth, evolution and evidence against the stories of Genesis. Did God re-arrange the Earth's geology to make it look like there was no flood, did he design our DNA to make it look like we descended from a common ancestor, did he arrange fossils in the Earth to make it look like evolution occurred. It seems like you prefer to believe the words of men in an ancient story to studying God's creation, it's extremely ironic that it's the Bible literalists that are implying God is a liar.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That just cracks me up!

Glad that it amuses you. Probably for the wrong reasons, though.

The hypothesis of evolution

The theory of evolution.

is thing evolving into something completely different.

Not at all. If you are going to try and argue against a well established scientific model, it's always a good idea to first learn what the model is actually about.

In evolution, every "new" species is always a subspecies of the parent species.

This is why homo sapiens are also still primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, etc.

Dogs don't give birth to cats.

If we all have a common ancestor Then we have all evolved into something different. I have evolved from a fish. If that isn't somthing different I don't know what is.

"fish" are modern creatures.
Not everything that lives in the sea is a fish.
In fact, sometimes, what looks like a fish isn't even a fish. Like whales for examples. Those aren't fish. Those are mammals.

You knock haven't debated evolution for quite some time. Its refreshing to once again do so and reconfirm just how silly it is.

The only thing silly here, is pretending to be arguing against evolution, while actually only arguing against a strawman.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In context what they are saying is: "Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful". In general most mutations are considered to be neutral. Their effect is neither beneficial nor harmful.

Harmful mutations, disappear quite quickly from the gene pool, for obvious reasons.

A process like evolution has no need for "many" or even "regular" beneficial mutations.
As long as some mutations are beneficial, that is enough.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes and the facts are that so call beneficial mutations are rare and most mutations are harmful according to talkorigins.

Diamonds are rare. Does that mean diamonds don't exist?

Also, talkorigins says that most mutations are neutral.

"Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

 

[Loudmouth]

In context what they are saying is: "Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful".

They flat out say that most mutations are neutral. Period. You are wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

Only 40 million? Well that's interesting. If there was 1 mutation per year then it would only take 40 million years.

Every single vertebrate is born with more than 1 mutation. In humans, each of us is born with 30 to 50 mutations. In a population of just 10 million humans, that is 500 million mutations in a single generation.

Let's actually figure out the math, shall we? I suspect that you won't respond after you see just how dishonest your post is, but time will tell.

Let's use a generation time of 25 years, the observed mutation rate of 50 mutations per birth per generation, a population of just 1 million humans, and a time span of 5 million years which is the proposed time since humans and chimps share common ancestry.

((5000000)/25)*50*1000000=10 trillion mutations

Chimps and humans are only separated by 40 million mutations out of the 10 trillion that did occur. Where is the problem?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In context what they are saying is: "Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful". In general most mutations are considered to be neutral. Their effect is neither beneficial nor harmful.

So in other words it did not say that most were harmful. It merely said that bad mutations out number good ones. And you claimed that was an example of evolution theory shooting itself in the foot. Why did you make that claim?

 

[rjs330]

Every single vertebrate is born with more than 1 mutation. In humans, each of us is born with 30 to 50 mutations. In a population of just 10 million humans, that is 500 million mutations in a single generation.

Let's actually figure out the math, shall we? I suspect that you won't respond after you see just how dishonest your post is, but time will tell.

Let's use a generation time of 25 years, the observed mutation rate of 50 mutations per birth per generation, a population of just 1 million humans, and a time span of 5 million years which is the proposed time since humans and chimps share common ancestry.

((5000000)/25)*50*1000000=10 trillion mutations

Chimps and humans are only separated by 40 million mutations out of the 10 trillion that did occur. Where is the problem?

Ah but those mutations we carry are not changing us into a different creature. And neither are the monkeys. So apparently those 40 million mutations are very large amount to be able to change into a different creature. And what kind of mutations are we talking about?
It's pretty easy to toss out the mutations idea as if all the mutations are something that would change us into something else. The mutation might be something as simple as eyesight or skin pigmentation. Yet the human remains human. It doesn't essentially change him into something else.

Again you are basing your hypothesis on assumptions not observable facts. The assumption is that the mutations would all evolve the same And the at the same rate to a particular end. If man has 30-40 mutations they are not all the same mutation. They could be all different ones,that would branch off and have no effect on actually changing anything.

Please give the definition of a mutation. A mutation from,what into what.

And just where are these monkeys that are evolving into humans now? If evolution is true then the process should not just stop should it? If only 40 million mutations and could you please post a link to all 40 million mutations please.

Phew.... And awful,lot of assuming going on here.



Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Loudmouth]

Ah but those mutations we carry are not changing us into a different creature.

Humans and chimps are not different creatures?

So apparently those 40 million mutations are very large amount to be able to change into a different creature.

It is only a 2% change for the 3 billion base human genome.

And what kind of mutations are we talking about?

Point mutations, indels, and recombination events.

It's pretty easy to toss out the mutations idea as if all the mutations are something that would change us into something else.

Am I missing something here? Why do you think humans and chimps look different? Isn't it because our genomes are different? Isn't it because of those 40 million differences between our genomes?

The mutation might be something as simple as eyesight or skin pigmentation. Yet the human remains human.

Chimps are humans?

It doesn't essentially change him into something else.

Chimps aren't essentially something different?

Again you are basing your hypothesis on assumptions not observable facts.

The physical and genetic differences between humans and chimps isn't observable? REALLY?????

I think I need to put on a pair of galoshes. It's getting a little deep in here.

The assumption is that the mutations would all evolve the same And the at the same rate to a particular end.

That isn't assumed at all. If we went back 5 million years and started with the same common ancestor, there is no expectation that chimps and humans would be the expected outcome. Things could go very differently due to the stochastic nature of evolution.

If man has 30-40 mutations they are not all the same mutation. They could be all different ones,that would branch off and have no effect on actually changing anything.

Do the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps have no effect? Perhaps you should think about that for a second.

Please give the definition of a mutation. A mutation from,what into what.

A point mutation is a change in the base a specific position. An A to a G or a T to a C, for example. AGGTTTCCC to AGTTTCCC

An indel is the insertion or deletion of a base or bases. AGGTTGTTTA to AGG--GTTTA for example.

A recombination event is where one strand of DNA excises out of the genome and inserts elsewhere, or single stranded DNA folds over and binds to other parts of the genome. This often occurs through homologous recombination where complementary bases stick to each other.

And just where are these monkeys that are evolving into humans now?

We are primates, and all primates are evolving into new variations of primates.

If evolution is true then the process should not just stop should it? If only 40 million mutations and could you please post a link to all 40 million mutations please.

You can read the chimp genome paper here:

"Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

Phew.... And awful,lot of assuming going on here.

That simply isn't true. You haven't been able to point to a single assumption thus far.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So in other words it did not say that most were harmful. It merely said that bad mutations out number good ones. And you claimed that was an example of evolution theory shooting itself in the foot. Why did you make that claim?

The point is you have no evidence of a beneficial mutation. And in order for the theory to work you could not even count how many so called beneficial mutation your theory would take. Pretty much an infinite number and we all know that the math is simply impossible. If you can not see the absurdity in that then there is nothing I can do to help you.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Diamonds are rare. Does that mean diamonds don't exist?

In order for your theory of evolution to work diamonds would need to be so common that you could pave the roads with them. As you admit they are rare and that is why your theory is not valid.

 

[Loudmouth]

The point is you have no evidence of a beneficial mutation.

The genetic differences between humans and chimps are not beneficial to humans?

And in order for the theory to work you could not even count how many so called beneficial mutation your theory would take.

We can count the number of mutations that separate species which gives us the maximum number of beneficial mutations. The real number is going to be well below the number of mutations that separate species because most of those differences are going to be neutral.

Pretty much an infinite number and we all know that the math is simply impossible.

There are an infinite number of mutations that separate chimps and humans? Really?

 

[Loudmouth]

In order for your theory of evolution to work diamonds would need to be so common that you could pave the roads with them.

Sorry, but that is entirely made up on your part. Far fewer than 20 million mutations are needed for humans to evolve from a common ancestor shared with chimps. Of the 40 million mutations that separate the two species, about half would occur in each lineage, meaning 20 million mutations in the human lineage. Since 10% of the human genome shows evidence of being functional as defined by conserved sequence, that puts the maximum at about 2 million beneficial mutations, and that is assuming all mutations in functional sequence have to be beneficial. Of the mutations that occur in functional sequence, a large portion are going to be neutral, such as synonymous mutations that don't change the amino acid sequence of the protein that comes from a specific gene. You are probably only looking at a few hundred thousand beneficial mutations needed to get humans from a common ancestor shared with chimps, at most. In a population of just 1 million humans, there are 50 million mutations PER GENERATION. Over a 5 million year period and a 25 year generation time, that is 200,000 generations. If you get 50 million mutations from a single generation, imagine how many you get from 200,000 generations.

Perhaps you should do the math. It completely refutes your entire argument.

As you admit they are rare and that is why your theory is not valid.

How does the rarity of beneficial mutations invalidate the theory?

 

[joshua 1 9]

OK, so most mutations are neutral, and more are harmful than beneficial. So? Only the beneficial mutations are passed on, since harmful mutations are ... you know, harmful.

It would take an infinite number of beneficial mutations for evolution to work. So even if there were a few rare beneficial mutation that is not going to add up to much of anything. Enough to get a fly to grow a leg out of his head maybe. Let us look at what collins has to say: "While it may seem to us that this whole process has the risk of randomness and, therefore, an unpredictable outcome, that was not the case for God". Clearly God has a plan and "unpredictable outcome" is not a part of that plan. God knows the end from the beginning and there is nothing unpredictable about His plan.

"If God is real, and I believe he is, then he is outside of nature. He is, therefore, not limited by the laws of nature in the way that we are. He's not limited by time. In the very moment of that flash in which the universe was created, an unimaginable burst of energy, God also had the plan of how that would coalesce into stars and galaxies, planets, and how life would arrive on a small planet near the outer rim of a spiral galaxy. And ultimately, over hundreds of millions of years, give rise to creatures with intelligence and in whom he could infuse this search for him and this knowledge of good and evil. And all of that happened in his mind in the blink of an eye. While it may seem to us that this whole process has the risk of randomness and, therefore, an unpredictable outcome, that was not the case for God."
Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/news/scien...tific-adventures.aspx?p=1#vS4KPIHImYiQbfUb.99

 

[Loudmouth]

It would take an infinite number of beneficial mutations for evolution to work.

How many mutations separate humans and chimps? An infinite number?

So even if there were a few rare beneficial mutation that is not going to add up to much of anything. Enough to get a fly to grow a leg out of his head maybe. Let us look at what collins has to say: "While it may seem to us that this whole process has the risk of randomness and, therefore, an unpredictable outcome, that was not the case for God". Clearly God has a plan and "unpredictable outcome" is not a part of that plan. God knows the end from the beginning and there is nothing unpredictable about His plan.

"If God is real, and I believe he is, then he is outside of nature. He is, therefore, not limited by the laws of nature in the way that we are. He's not limited by time. In the very moment of that flash in which the universe was created, an unimaginable burst of energy, God also had the plan of how that would coalesce into stars and galaxies, planets, and how life would arrive on a small planet near the outer rim of a spiral galaxy. And ultimately, over hundreds of millions of years, give rise to creatures with intelligence and in whom he could infuse this search for him and this knowledge of good and evil. And all of that happened in his mind in the blink of an eye. While it may seem to us that this whole process has the risk of randomness and, therefore, an unpredictable outcome, that was not the case for God."
Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/news/scien...tific-adventures.aspx?p=1#vS4KPIHImYiQbfUb.99

Any evidence to back this up? Or are they yet another list of bare assertions?

 

[joshua 1 9]

The genetic differences between humans and chimps are not beneficial to humans?

*IF* monkeys evolved into chimps *then* mutations had nothing to do with it. As Collins says God has a plan and there is nothing unpredictable about His plan.

We can count the number of mutations that separate species which gives us the maximum number of beneficial mutations.

There are no beneficial mutations to count because they do not exist. A lot of what makes up the difference has to do with regulation and mutation has nothing to do with that.

There are an infinite number of mutations that separate chimps and humans? Really?

You are smart enough to figure this out, so I can only assume that for whatever your reason you do not want to know the truth. We already did the "infinite monkey theorem" in another thread so there is no reason to kick that dead horse again.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Any evidence to back this up? Or are they yet another list of bare assertions?

You want evidence of a fly with a leg growing out of his head?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Harmful mutations, disappear quite quickly from the gene pool, for obvious reasons.

The reason mutations, mistakes and errors disappear is because of the mathematical precision of DNA is able to self correct and maintain it's integrity.

As long as some mutations are beneficial, that is enough.

I am not going to keep repeating this over and over again. There are NONE, even if there were SOME that would not be enough. You would HAVE to have an infinite number of mutations for your theory to work and you can only claim to produce a few or some.

 

[Loudmouth]

You want evidence of a fly with a leg growing out of his head?

I want evidence that God did what you claimed. Or was it just a bare assertion?

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not going to keep repeating this over and over again. There are NONE,

I am going to repeat this over and over and over until you respond to it.

Those beneficial mutations are found among the 40 million mutations that separate chimps and humans

You would HAVE to have an infinite number of mutations for your theory to work and you can only claim to produce a few or some.

Are there an infinite number of mutations that separate humans and chimps?