"1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin"

[Tiberius]

I thought you knew this stuff! You didn't know that living things require homochiral sugars, or how sugars bind to essentials for life... or how homochiral building blocks are obviously required for abiogenesis...

...You're right, DON'T read my posts to you or Dan from Smithville, read some evolution books!

Like I said, if you wish to make a point, you must actually MAKE it. I'm not going to go searching through all of your posts to try to find something you wrote.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The very facts that none of the original books in the Old Testament exist today, and all extant sources (ie literary evidences, manuscripts, scrolls, papyri, etc, of Masoretic Texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Samaritan Torah, Vulgate Bible, etc) demonstrably of different versions of the Old Testament, where inconsistencies and errors are found, make the bible not infallible and not inerrant.

And the translations (eg KJV, NASB, NRSV, NIV, NJPS, etc) that we read, especially of the English-speaking backgrounds, are largely dependent on the Masoretic Texts as primary source, and depending on which translations you read, they are supplemented with Septuagint to various degrees.

So there might be contextual variants to these translations.

Those different sources that are still extant, those different translations, and the errors and inconsistencies that can be found in each and every one of them. All of these are evidences that make the Bible not infallible.

If anyone is closed-minded, BB, it is you, because you refused to see the evidences.

Do you have a percentage of difference? Because in addition to formal and dynamic schools of translation, we have English issues, but did you want to explain why the Hebrew and Greek CANNOT be inerrant, or are you open-minded here?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Like I said, if you wish to make a point, you must actually MAKE it. I'm not going to go searching through all of your posts to try to find something you wrote.

Redacted:

"Your pride disallows you from bothering to read anyone's posts but yours."

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am open minded. That does not mean I am feeble-minded and do not recognize someone playing pretend or back-handed insults from the close-minded.

Now your evidence is assertions that "the truth is out there". I have no doubt that there are many posts on this forum that declare you believe. Remember. My argument is not that you believe. My rejection is your unsupported assertions that you have established Bible infallibility. A rejection that still stands on the lack of evidence for acceptance provided by this very post of yours that I am addressing. I have not asserted that there is no accurate or verifiable information in the Bible. Moving the goal posts in such a ham-handed fashion does not support your argument.

So now you are reading my mind? When I'm pursuing vulnerable communication with you, you discern my hidden agenda and my left-handed compliments.

Technically, I need not defend an infallible text. I myself and written and read texts without errors in them.

I would say, however, that fulfilled prophecy shows God, who exists out of time and is sovereign, superintended the writing of the infallible Bible. Would you like to discuss? Or will it be more "I already heard EVERYTHING about prophecy from closed-minded literalists."

Respectfully, since 1/3 of the OT is prophecy (!) and there are 10 verses for Christ's Return for every NT verse of His First Advent (!), if you say, "I've heard it all regarding prophecy", we can just stop talking at all!

 

[BilliardsBall]

You did not pose your objection openly. You claim to be closed to the evidence. You know without evidence and cannot or refuse to supply evidence. That is textbook closed-minded.

The evidence all points to the evolution of humans and that those are roughly the number of differences between our nearest biological relative, the chimpanzees. You are suggesting that I lie to myself and to others just because you are a Christian that does not understand, but is convinced is an expert and really, really, really want your version of creation to be true. You cast yourself as correct merely by association. By choosing to avoid that trap, I get condemned.

It's simple, still. Natural selection, plus a blind watchmaker with no end goal in mind, cannot account for 32 million base pair changes, in 10-14 million years of evolution. But I think I should take this elsewhere--you seem on the whole to be a biologist, without any detailed experience in statistical inference.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's simple, still. Natural selection, plus a blind watchmaker with no end goal in mind, cannot account for 32 million base pair changes, in 10-14 million years of evolution. But I think I should take this elsewhere--you seem on the whole to be a biologist, without any detailed experience in statistical inference.

And what are the actual statistics supporting this assertion that these phenomenon can't account for the base pair changes?

 

[tas8831]

It's simple, still. Natural selection, plus a blind watchmaker with no end goal in mind, cannot account for 32 million base pair changes, in 10-14 million years of evolution.

Quite an assertion.

Devoid of rationale and support, s usual, but quite a thing to see nonetheless.

It is so cool how you repeat the same lame things over and over in the hopes that they will impress others as much as they impressed you - like your whole 'neurological control' for 'bacterial release' thing re: the appendix.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's simple, still. Natural selection, plus a blind watchmaker with no end goal in mind, cannot account for 32 million base pair changes, in 10-14 million years of evolution. But I think I should take this elsewhere--you seem on the whole to be a biologist, without any detailed experience in statistical inference.

Why make such a claim? By doing so you put the burden of proof upon yourself. Now if you can't prove this claim it only looks as if you were lying. Let's look at your numbers though, just for fun. I will assume that they are correct. Let's say 30 million base pair changes in 10 million years. You emphasized the word "pair" as if that matters, I don't think that is the case. Mutations can happen one at a time. With a population averaging just one million, which would be on the low side, and fifteen years for the average generation, it has gotten longer only recently and is probably less than that. And with 100 mutations per individual per generation we get: 6 *10^13 mutations. Now granted, most of those will not stick. But we only need one out of two million mutations to become part of the genome. Do you understand that the math looks like it totally goes against you? I only need one out of 2 million mutations to be positive and become part of our genome. I am betting that I can show far more than one out of two million mutations are positive.


You do realize that none of the people that you follow can support this claim. All they can make are faulty arguments based upon man being a goal. Man is not a goal he is a result. Your argument only works if you treat man as a goal and not as a result. But that would be like taking the latest list of lottery winners and saying that it is impossible for them to have won since the cumulative odds of their winning is lower than the 1 out of 10^60 figure used by some as to what they call "impossible odds". In reality the odds of someone winning the lottery is for all practical purposes 1 since the number of people playing continually grows as the jackpot grows. Learn how to do odds correctly and you will not make such poor arguments.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So now you are reading my mind? When I'm pursuing vulnerable communication with you, you discern my hidden agenda and my left-handed compliments.

What? You are losing your cool.

Technically, I need not defend an infallible text. I myself and written and read texts without errors in them.

What?

I would say, however, that fulfilled prophecy shows God, who exists out of time and is sovereign, superintended the writing of the infallible Bible. Would you like to discuss? Or will it be more "I already heard EVERYTHING about prophecy from closed-minded literalists."

I accept that you believe that the Bible is infallible and you believe you have evidence for it. Now that you mention it, I have heard a lot about prophecy. Nothing that would lead me to believe the claims that all or many have been fulfilled.

Respectfully, since 1/3 of the OT is prophecy (!) and there are 10 verses for Christ's Return for every NT verse of His First Advent (!), if you say, "I've heard it all regarding prophecy", we can just stop talking at all!

You can stop responding to me any time you want. No one is holding you hostage.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's simple, still. Natural selection, plus a blind watchmaker with no end goal in mind, cannot account for 32 million base pair changes, in 10-14 million years of evolution.

Yet you offer no evidence to support this claim or explain away the evidence that does support human evolution.

According to the literature, there are approximately 100 mutations per person per generation. If you allow for a generation time of 20 years and just those 100/person/generation mutations, it would take only 6.6 million years to account for 33 million differences. Then you factor in the fact that we are talking about divergent lines and evolution is occurring simultaneously. None of your faux statistics needed.

But I think I should take this elsewhere--you seem on the whole to be a biologist, without any detailed experience in statistical inference.

You mean a biologist who, along with half a dozen other knowledgeable people, has provided sound reason to reject your faux statistics. It is actually probabilities. But it does not matter. It is still wrong. Nobody is holding you hostage. You are free to do as you choose. I understand.

 

[Polymath257]

It's simple, still. Natural selection, plus a blind watchmaker with no end goal in mind, cannot account for 32 million base pair changes, in 10-14 million years of evolution. But I think I should take this elsewhere--you seem on the whole to be a biologist, without any detailed experience in statistical inference.

OK, why do you think evolution cannot account for this?

Do you think each mutation is limited to *one* base pair? Do you think that only few changes happen per generation?

 

[Polymath257]

Yet you offer no evidence to support this claim or explain away the evidence that does support human evolution.

According to the literature, there are approximately 100 mutations per person per generation. If you allow for a generation time of 20 years and just those 100/person/generation mutations, it would take only 6.6 million years to account for 33 million differences. Then you factor in the fact that we are talking about divergent lines and evolution is occurring simultaneously. None of your faux statistics needed.

You mean a biologist who, along with half a dozen other knowledgeable people, has provided sound reason to reject your faux statistics. It is actually probabilities. But it does not matter. It is still wrong. Nobody is holding you hostage. You are free to do as you choose. I understand.

Not to mention cases where multiple base pairs are changed in a single mutation event. Or cases where the differences are repetitious strings (see debate about telomeres) where a single change can cause many base-pair changes all at once. Or cases where there are insertions, which change the whole length of the insertion all at once. Or cases where there are inversions, again producing multiple base-pair changes all at once.

Even a basic knowledge of biology shows the possible types of change are quite enough to produce this amount of change this quickly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not to mention cases where multiple base pairs are changed in a single mutation event. Or cases where the differences are repetitious strings (see debate about telomeres) where a single change can cause many base-pair changes all at once. Or cases where there are insertions, which change the whole length of the insertion all at once. Or cases where there are inversions, again producing multiple base-pair changes all at once.

Even a basic knowledge of biology shows the possible types of change are quite enough to produce this amount of change this quickly.

I think that one problem that some have is that they think evolution occurs linearly. In other words one of perhaps two changes the most in a genome. When in reality since it occurs in populations many changes can accumulate per generation.

 

[Tiberius]

Redacted:

"Your pride disallows you from bothering to read anyone's posts but yours."

No. Time constraints prevent me from searching through thousands of posts trying to find the one I have to assume you are talking about.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And what are the actual statistics supporting this assertion that these phenomenon can't account for the base pair changes?

You want statistics that natural selection (helps survivable traits of a species, like camouflage) doesn't have the power to affect individual DNA base pairs?

Are all skeptics insane?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You want statistics that natural selection (helps survivable traits of a species, like camouflage) doesn't have the power to affect individual DNA base pairs?

Are all skeptics insane?

You've made a claim that "Natural selection, plus a blind watchmaker with no end goal in mind, cannot account for 32 million base pair changes, in 10-14 million years of evolution." I just want you to show your statistics. What is your reasoning?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Quite an assertion.

Devoid of rationale and support, s usual, but quite a thing to see nonetheless.

It is so cool how you repeat the same lame things over and over in the hopes that they will impress others as much as they impressed you - like your whole 'neurological control' for 'bacterial release' thing re: the appendix.

Now that you've calmed yourself, let's ask you for the "rationale and support" you requested from me! Explain how natural selection goes beyond enhancing survivability (mating, camouflage, etc.) to changing individual base pairs of DNA:

1)
2)
3)

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why make such a claim? By doing so you put the burden of proof upon yourself. Now if you can't prove this claim it only looks as if you were lying. Let's look at your numbers though, just for fun. I will assume that they are correct. Let's say 30 million base pair changes in 10 million years. You emphasized the word "pair" as if that matters, I don't think that is the case. Mutations can happen one at a time. With a population averaging just one million, which would be on the low side, and fifteen years for the average generation, it has gotten longer only recently and is probably less than that. And with 100 mutations per individual per generation we get: 6 *10^13 mutations. Now granted, most of those will not stick. But we only need one out of two million mutations to become part of the genome. Do you understand that the math looks like it totally goes against you? I only need one out of 2 million mutations to be positive and become part of our genome. I am betting that I can show far more than one out of two million mutations are positive.


You do realize that none of the people that you follow can support this claim. All they can make are faulty arguments based upon man being a goal. Man is not a goal he is a result. Your argument only works if you treat man as a goal and not as a result. But that would be like taking the latest list of lottery winners and saying that it is impossible for them to have won since the cumulative odds of their winning is lower than the 1 out of 10^60 figure used by some as to what they call "impossible odds". In reality the odds of someone winning the lottery is for all practical purposes 1 since the number of people playing continually grows as the jackpot grows. Learn how to do odds correctly and you will not make such poor arguments.

You have a source for 100 mutations per every individual per generation? You have a source for 100 mutations passed to the next generation? (You don't, these are binary pair matings between primates).

6*10^13 divided by 2 million (your numbers) = 300 million mutations. Not bad! Since we need only 32 million to work, since the forensics shows the same, you know, the actual math. All we need now is for one of every 9.375 mutations you claim by your math to:

* Enhance survivability
* Take the species forward/alter DNA, without killing the species
* Spread throughout the entire population of 1,000,000, since all 32 million changes are required to forward the species, etc.

"Do you understand that the math looks like it totally goes against you?"

"Learn how to do odds correctly and you will not make such poor arguments."

 

[BilliardsBall]

OK, why do you think evolution cannot account for this?

Do you think each mutation is limited to *one* base pair? Do you think that only few changes happen per generation?

See my reply elsewhere on this thread, where two of us delve into the math.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. Time constraints prevent me from searching through thousands of posts trying to find the one I have to assume you are talking about.

I forgot, what are we talking about, now?