• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

When did dinosaurs turn into birds?

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But it does not take "an infinite number of monkeys" if one uses selection. The complete works of Shakespeare have been reproduced by a computer simulation with a limited number of simulated number and a selection device.

Yes, if evolution was random we would need an infinite amount of time. Lucky for us that it isn't.
Natural selection is not random. Variation is not random. God knows the end from the beginning. There is nothing arbitrary about it, no place for determination power and no room for choice. That is the very foundation of natural law. I believe in miracles but a miracle takes place when the natural law has been broken. So a miracles restore everything to the way the law intended for them to be. The problem with a miracles is to show that there was ever a problem in the first place. Because the result of a miracles is that the natural laws have been restored and everything is the way it should be.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Since when do we need an infinite number of individuals for beneficial mutations to occur, when all possible beneficial mutations for our ancestral species are hardly a requirement for our species to result after many generations?
The infinite monkey theorem has been attributed to Thomas Henry Huxley (Darwin's bulldog). Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins employs the typing monkey concept in his book The Blind Watchmaker to demonstrate the ability of natural selection to produce biological complexity out of random mutations.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The differences in gene regulation ARE DUE TO DNA DIFFERENCES. You don't get differences in gene regulation with the same DNA sequence.
This is faulty logic to say the difference is due to mutations. Cars come in different colors some are red, some back some white and so on. The difference has nothing to do with mutations.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Of course natural selection is not random. That is why the theory has survived for 100 years. The question is what does natural selection select. Where does variation come from.

DNA mutations produce phenotypic variation which is what natural selection works on.

The mutation theory is an attempt to answer that question and it totally fails to do that.

Your argument has already been completely refuted. Species are different from each other because of mutations.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
This is faulty logic to say the difference is due to mutations.

"Twelve populations of Escherichia coli, derived from a common ancestor, evolved in a glucose-limited medium for 20,000 generations. Here we use DNA expression arrays to examine whether gene-expression profiles in two populations evolved in parallel, which would indicate adaptation, and to gain insight into the mechanisms underlying their adaptation. We compared the expression profile of the ancestor to that of clones sampled from both populations after 20,000 generations. The expression of 59 genes had changed significantly in both populations. Remarkably, all 59 were changed in the same direction relative to the ancestor. Many of these genes were members of the cAMP-cAMP receptor protein (CRP) and guanosine tetraphosphate (ppGpp) regulons. Sequencing of several genes controlling the effectors of these regulons found a nonsynonymous mutation in spoT in one population. Moving this mutation into the ancestral background showed that it increased fitness and produced many of the expression changes manifest after 20,000 generations."
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/3/1072.short

We OBSERVE that mutations change gene expression.

Cars come in different colors some are red, some back some white and so on. The difference has nothing to do with mutations.

Cars aren't biological organisms. You call my reasoning faulty, and then you use this terrible argument? Seriously?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Natural selection is not random. Variation is not random. God knows the end from the beginning. There is nothing arbitrary about it, no place for determination power and no room for choice. That is the very foundation of natural law. I believe in miracles but a miracle takes place when the natural law has been broken. So a miracles restore everything to the way the law intended for them to be. The problem with a miracles is to show that there was ever a problem in the first place. Because the result of a miracles is that the natural laws have been restored and everything is the way it should be.

Variation is random, natural selection is not. Why is that so hard to understand?

You don't seem to want to admit to the fact that your beliefs lack evidence where that of scientists does not.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Variation is random, natural selection is not. Why is that so hard to understand?
I understand just fine. I just do not believe. Wish I could say that for you.

You don't seem to want to admit to the fact that your beliefs lack evidence where that of scientists does not.
I have never seen any evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
I understand just fine. I just do not believe. Wish I could say that for you.

Your beliefs have no effect on reality.

"Here we present, to our knowledge, the first direct comparative analysis of male and female germline mutation rates from the complete genome sequences of two parent-offspring trios. Through extensive validation, we identified 49 and 35 germline de novo mutations (DNMs) in two trio offspring, as well as 1,586 non-germline DNMs arising either somatically or in the cell lines from which the DNA was derived."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v43/n7/full/ng.862.html

We can directly observe the production of mutations.

I have never seen any evidence.

You have been shown the evidence numerous times.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You have been shown the evidence numerous times.
Your link did not show any beneficial mutations at all. Also we have to consider that there are a lot of things that you would consider to be a mutation that I do not consider to be a mutation like frame shift. Clearly frame shift is a part of natural selection. What I am talking about are the copy mistakes and error type of mutations that tend to self correct themselves. The whole scientific process is to sort though what is and what is not valid.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Your link did not show any beneficial mutations at all.

The beneficial mutations are the ones that separate us from chimps, as has been explained to you several times now.

Also we have to consider that there are a lot of things that you would consider to be a mutation that I do not consider to be a mutation like frame shift.

"In biology, a mutation is a permanent alteration of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

Isn't that the definition you are using?

A frame shift is caused by the insertion or deletion of DNA bases in multiples other than 3. Indels that are multiples of 3 result an alteration of the amino acid sequence, but preserve the reading frame. It is a permanent alteration of the nucleotide sequence. It is a mutation by every definition of the word.

hqdefault.jpg


Clearly frame shift is a part of natural selection. What I am talking about are the copy mistakes and error type of mutations that tend to self correct themselves. The whole scientific process is to sort though what is and what is not valid.

Not all of them are immediately corrected which is why every human is born with between 35 and 50 mutations, including point mutations, indels, and genetic recombinations.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Dawkins is not atheist Jesus. I don't even like the guy, so why would I care about some flawed example in one of his worst literary works?
That is fine if you reject the infinite monkey theory because that is the whole point. In order for evolution to work the theory would have to be true. Sense you do not accept the theory then you reject random evolutionary theory. People want to repeatedly point out that natural selection is not random at all. Still some people believe the selections themselves are random but we see that just is not possible without accepting Dawkin's atheistic version of Evolution.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The beneficial mutations are the ones that separate us from chimps, as has been explained to you several times now.
We are using a different definition for "beneficial mutations" my fault I should have been more clear about that.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I understand just fine. I just do not believe. Wish I could say that for you.

Sorry, you don't understand. If you understood that would mean that you just admitted to lying, and I really don't believe that you were lying. You do not understand how a nonrandom control can stop a random process from being random.

I have never seen any evidence.

Actually you have, but like most creationists you do not understand the concept of evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
That is fine if you reject the infinite monkey theory because that is the whole point. In order for evolution to work the theory would have to be true. Sense you do not accept the theory then you reject random evolutionary theory. People want to repeatedly point out that natural selection is not random at all. Still some people believe the selections themselves are random but we see that just is not possible without accepting Dawkin's atheistic version of Evolution.

No, it doesn't. You cannot debunk a theory with your inability to understand it. The "infinite monkey" example, it is not a theory, it is not even a hypothesis, does not apply because there is no selection. A finite number of monkeys (virtual ones) have written the entire works of Shakespeare, after a selection mechanism was added. The idea fails on more than one level.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
We are using a different definition for "beneficial mutations" my fault I should have been more clear about that.
You can't use your own definitions in a debate. You need to find a reasonable definition. It appears that yours is not.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,593
Northern Ohio
✟314,607.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You can't use your own definitions in a debate. You need to find a reasonable definition. It appears that yours is not.
Yes I need to work on a definition. The terms I am using is not going to convey the message I want to communicate.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Yes I need to work on a definition. The terms I am using is not going to convey the message I want to communicate.

Others were using the term, they may have to define it if they haven't. Though if pressed I could come up with a valid definition You don't have a valid definition. You need to try again.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
It is against the rules to accuse people of lying.


I didn't accuse you of lying. You need to read the entire sentence at least. It is dishonest, though you did not quite cross the line over into lying, to quote out of context. As a Christian you should try to avoid that. Here is the entire sentence, it would be better yet to read the entire paragraph:

"If you understood that would mean that you just admitted to lying, and I really don't believe that you were lying."

Looking at that we need even a little more context. Earlier you claimed to understand something that you clearly did not understand. This was not a lie on your part, just a gross error. To your claim of understanding I responded:

"Sorry, you don't understand. If you understood that would mean that you just admitted to lying, and I really don't believe that you were lying. You do not understand how a nonrandom control can stop a random process from being random."


You see I said that "if you understand" and it is clear that you do not, you would have admitted to lying. That is not accusing you of lying even if you did actually understand. The consequences of your statement would have been an admission to lying if you were correct. Now if I said "that means you are a liar" that would have been a different kettle of fish. I would not do that since it is against the rules here. But if someone admits that they are a liar, which in reality you did not do since you have no understanding of selection, then I don't think it is against the rules to point that out to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0