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

[BilliardsBall]

Can you cite evidence to support this claim?

You want evidence that the macro environment CANNOT control random mutations at the DNA level? Random mutations that are later selected/variegated into the population? I think there's something flawed in your "reasoning".

 

[gnostic]

The main difference between Dan and I and you is Dan and I are making efforts to show love, without accusations, since we are Christians. You have changed (descended) since you walked away from the church. You consistently do rude things including accusing me of lying. Please put me on ignore.

I have not use “ignore” list in years, and only 2 people were in the list, but I had remove them.

So it is currently empty.

Surely, you know that I am not the only one who have said you being lying or using false information.

If you don’t people to say to you, “You are lying”, then all you have to do is - don’t lie.

Don’t spread misinformation from your apologetic sources.

Don’t use logical fallacies. Which is another thing, you have the tendencies to do.

If you don’t understand something, ask questions or ask for clarification, instead of arguing with someone on subject that you don’t know anything about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Natural selection + variation are insufficient to cause DIRECT change to DNA! That is an outrageous claim you've made (again).

That is hardly outrageous. I have demonstrated that the number of changes is well within the realm of possibility. We have mountains of evidence supporting evolution. You have none to the contrary. Why would you make such an obviously false claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You gave math re: positive mutations, without:

1) Answering the math I completed for you, showing your outrageous claim that 1 in 10 mutations is positive! That's why I referred you to Dan from Smithville, who more rightly claimed an assumed .000000001 positive alleles likely or possible!

2) That alone is enough to make your argument moot, so see other post re: your additional faulty claims.

Stop using rhetoric, look at the math, and learn something!

I offered to move on once you clearly admitted your error. Now you have halfway owned up to the fact that the claim that you made repeatedly was wrong. You need to be clearer if you are going to demand anything else.

And I never claimed that one mutation in ten needs to be positive. That would have been an outrageous claim. I showed that only one change in a million needs to be positive. And that is far from outrageous. What bodily orifice of yours did you pull the one in ten figure from?

Were you wrong when you stated that it was impossible for the number of changes necessary to occur since the split between man and chimp to have happened? Admit that error and we can move on. Otherwise it now looks like you would be lying if you made that claim again.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have not use “ignore” list in years, and only 2 people were in the list, but I had remove them.

So it is currently empty.

Surely, you know that I am not the only one who have said you being lying or using false information.

If you don’t people to say to you, “You are lying”, then all you have to do is - don’t lie.

Don’t spread misinformation from your apologetic sources.

Don’t use logical fallacies. Which is another thing, you have the tendencies to do.

If you don’t understand something, ask questions or ask for clarification, instead of arguing with someone on subject that you don’t know anything about.

I do not lie.

I'm more logical (IMHO) than any skeptic, since the Bible says skeptics are deceived, their logic confounded.

Stop being patronizing, I have the right to ask questions on subjects where I lack knowledge, and typically answer skeptics Socratically, via sincere questions!

 

[Polymath257]

I do not lie.

I'm more logical (IMHO) than any skeptic, since the Bible says skeptics are deceived, their logic confounded.

Isn't that *convenient*. It means you can ignore any skeptical argument if you disagree with it.

Stop being patronizing, I have the right to ask questions on subjects where I lack knowledge, and typically answer skeptics Socratically, via sincere questions!

Stop using invalid sources like creationist sites.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is hardly outrageous. I have demonstrated that the number of changes is well within the realm of possibility. We have mountains of evidence supporting evolution. You have none to the contrary. Why would you make such an obviously false claim?

Corrections:

There are 32 million DNA differences (assuming the skeptics' difference of "only" 1% between chimps and people) between these species.

You claimed math which I accepted, showing a likely 300 million mutations during the descent from apes to men.

That is less than 1 in 10 mutations are positive and included in the final resultant species--YOU claimed evolution uses selection and variation to ensure changes move forward in this way.

That is nonsense! NONSENSE. DO YOU CLAIM 1 in 10 random mutations are positive?!

I cannot discuss evolution with you when you go AGAINST all our current knowledge regarding mutations and positive outcomes.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I offered to move on once you clearly admitted your error. Now you have halfway owned up to the fact that the claim that you made repeatedly was wrong. You need to be clearer if you are going to demand anything else.

And I never claimed that one mutation in ten needs to be positive. That would have been an outrageous claim. I showed that only one change in a million needs to be positive. And that is far from outrageous. What bodily orifice of yours did you pull the one in ten figure from?

Were you wrong when you stated that it was impossible for the number of changes necessary to occur since the split between man and chimp to have happened? Admit that error and we can move on. Otherwise it now looks like you would be lying if you made that claim again.

More nonsense from you:

"1 in 1,000,000 changes are positive"

"32 million changes represent 32 that turn chimps to people, and over 31 million changes that are [junk DNA, extra programming, negative that could kill the species, etc.] WHILE SELECTION AND VARIATION ONLY YIELD POSITIVE SPECIES CHANGES."

Should you be my car mechanic? 1,000,000 times after visiting, you fix the car?

Please go away and learn "how to science, how to statistics".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Corrections:

There are 32 million DNA differences (assuming the skeptics' difference of "only" 1% between chimps and people) between these species.

You claimed math which I accepted, showing a likely 300 million mutations during the descent from apes to men.

That is less than 1 in 10 mutations are positive and included in the final resultant species--YOU claimed evolution uses selection and variation to ensure changes move forward in this way.

That is nonsense! NONSENSE. DO YOU CLAIM 1 in 10 random mutations are positive?!

I cannot discuss evolution with you when you go AGAINST all our current knowledge regarding mutations and positive outcomes.

LOL!! You used the "assumed" word again. That puts the burden of proof show that it is assumed upon you. Since these difference have been measured, and in fact have been measured using different methods, which of course give different answers since they were measuring different things. it appears that you are not being exactly honest in your use of that term. And you misunderstood the math. Go back and look at it again. That is not the figure that I had. I don't know where you got that from. There would be at least 30 trillion mutations. If one out of one million, a ridiculous pessimistic number, then there would be 30 million positive mutations. You appear to somehow have gotten positive mutations conflated with all mutations.

If you want to go through the math we can do so step by step.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do not lie.

I'm more logical (IMHO) than any skeptic, since the Bible says skeptics are deceived, their logic confounded.

Stop being patronizing, I have the right to ask questions on subjects where I lack knowledge, and typically answer skeptics Socratically, via sincere questions!

Funny how your argumentation doesn't reflect that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More nonsense from you:

"1 in 1,000,000 changes are positive"

"32 million changes represent 32 that turn chimps to people, and over 31 million changes that are [junk DNA, extra programming, negative that could kill the species, etc.] WHILE SELECTION AND VARIATION ONLY YIELD POSITIVE SPECIES CHANGES."

Should you be my car mechanic? 1,000,000 times after visiting, you fix the car?

Please go away and learn "how to science, how to statistics".

You are still using the figure for positive mutations for all mutations. That is an automatic fail on your part. And you do not seem to understand that each individual in each generation is a "trip to the mechanic" I need to repeat this. The figure was on the order of 30 trillion mutations. If only one out of one million was positive that would be 30 million positive changes and the number needed was far far below that. Also, do not make the error of assuming that they had to be specific mutations. That is assuming a goal and mankind and chimpanzees were not a goal. They were a result.

 

[gnostic]

Stop being patronizing, I have the right to ask questions on subjects where I lack knowledge, and typically answer skeptics Socratically, via sincere questions!

But the problem is you have been using creationists’ websites in which they distort not only the science with misinformation and propaganda, but they also distort the Bible which they supposedly holds dear.

Using and quoting false and biased information, would only make you look like you’re lying too.

I do not lie.

I'm more logical (IMHO) than any skeptic, since the Bible says skeptics are deceived, their logic confounded.

Wow, you are more logical than any skeptic?

You are skeptic of science, bb. So if you want you claiming about skeptics being “deceived”, then you are also “deceived” by your own exercise in skepticism.

The Bible is far from being “logical”.

Genesis 1 & 2 (eg turning dust into a living adult man) are not the only chapters that defied logic and reality.

Example, talking serpent in Genesis 3 (as well as talking donkey in Numbers), defied all logic and reality. You would only find talking serpents, talking equines, dogs, cats, bears, panda, eagles, etc, in myths, fables and fairytale, and in modern fiction, like Doctor Doolittle, Harry Potter, Mister Ed, Francis the talking mule, all those Looney Tunes and Disney animations/movies, etc.

And if you read Job 38 to 41, you would see that the author have God’s answering Job with bunch of nonsensical superstitions. None of God’s ranting challenges have scientific merits. If that was truly God’s view of the natural world, then they all defied logic and reality.

In 2000, when I re-read the Bible that I have not touch in 14-15 years, my view have changed. And my revision didn’t start with Genesis creation.

No, my first doubt in 2000, started with Matthew 1:23 interpretation of Isaiah’s sign 7:14. That’s what made first doubting the veracity of the Bible’s infallibility and inerrancy.

Why didn’t I see the false claim from the gospel? My guess that that i didn’t any problem with Matthew 1’s claim of virgin birth because I was younger back then in the early to mid 1980s, less experience with reading and interpreting Bible, and back then, I was more readily to believe in anything, so I took the Bible at face value.

The gospel misinterpretation of Isaiah’s sign, made me re-examine every less than logical stories, eventually made me doubt Genesis creation and flood.

The Bible isn’t a science book, and it is mistake for creationists to use Genesis creation and flood as science. All it did, was exposed the gaping holes in the Bible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Natural selection + variation are insufficient to cause DIRECT change to DNA! That is an outrageous claim you've made (again).

Natural selection does not cause changes to DNA. Variation describes differences between comparable DNA sequences, or genes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You gave math re: positive mutations, without:

1) Answering the math I completed for you, showing your outrageous claim that 1 in 10 mutations is positive! That's why I referred you to Dan from Smithville, who more rightly claimed an assumed .000000001 positive alleles likely or possible!

I chose a rate purposefully biased to the very low end. Actual frequency values determined from field populations of insects have been found to be as high as 0.01 for genes conferring insecticide resistance.

If I recall correctly, I used SZ's numbers and they produced a respectable result.

2) That alone is enough to make your argument moot, so see other post re: your additional faulty claims.

Not from what I have determined it has not.

Stop using rhetoric, look at the math, and learn something!

I think he has the math down.

Your argument that there would not be enough time for the number of differences between human and chimpanzee genomes to develop to 32 million in six or seven million years does not hold water.

The idea that 32 million differences is not enough to result in the phenotypic differences between humans and chimpanzees does not hold water either. It is not the absolute number of differences, but what genes those differences occur in. You have offered nothing that would indicate that these differences were in loci of no developmental or biological significance.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The main difference between Dan and I and you is Dan and I are making efforts to show love, without accusations, since we are Christians. You have changed (descended) since you walked away from the church. You consistently do rude things including accusing me of lying. Please put me on ignore.

Based only on his presence here, I find him to be a decent person that has not presented anything that I could determine to be deceitful, dishonest or rude. I appreciate what appears to be a level of mutual respect. For instance, I would never respond to him with a post that insinuated he was somehow morally and spiritually less human than I am.

 

[Tiberius]

You want evidence that the macro environment CANNOT control random mutations at the DNA level? Random mutations that are later selected/variegated into the population? I think there's something flawed in your "reasoning".

1. Random mutations at the DNA level occur during reproduction.
2. Offspring produced are different than their parents because of these DNA level mutations.
3. These differences cause the offspring to respond in slightly different ways to pressures from the macro environment.
4. The slight differences can affect the chances of the offspring's survival.
5. Macro-environment pressures that put some DNA level mutations at risk while being advantageous to others will reduce the number of offspring that have the detrimental mutations while increasing the number of beneficial mutations.
6. As more generations come and go, the beneficial mutations will tend to spread throughout the population while the detrimental mutations will reduce in number.

Honestly, this is very basic. If you don't understand this, then you really should educate yourself before you try to have a discussion about it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1. Random mutations at the DNA level occur during reproduction.
2. Offspring produced are different than their parents because of these DNA level mutations.
3. These differences cause the offspring to respond in slightly different ways to pressures from the macro environment.
4. The slight differences can affect the chances of the offspring's survival.
5. Macro-environment pressures that put some DNA level mutations at risk while being advantageous to others will reduce the number of offspring that have the detrimental mutations while increasing the number of beneficial mutations.
6. As more generations come and go, the beneficial mutations will tend to spread throughout the population while the detrimental mutations will reduce in number.

Honestly, this is very basic. If you don't understand this, then you really should educate yourself before you try to have a discussion about it.

I wish he would stick to a basic vocabulary and stop unnecessarily inserting unusual words like variegated. It makes his sentences needlessly complex and confusing, while failing to provide any appearance that he understands what he is attempting to discuss. His previous use of binary pair to reference mating between two individuals is another example. Essentially, he was referring to a foursome and not a twosome.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do not lie.

I hope not, but you have repeated existing claims--I am assuming from some external source--I know to be incorrect. Certainly, I have seen you exaggerate your position, confuse your opinion as fact and resort to logical fallacies.

I'm more logical (IMHO) than any skeptic, since the Bible says skeptics are deceived, their logic confounded.

I have different opinion. Resorting to logical fallacies is not the tactic of the logical person.

There is no sin in being skeptical. It is a superior position to being lead about like a sheep or the suspension of critical thought. There is also a vast difference between skepticism and denial. The former seeks knowledge and understanding, while the latter rejects knowledge and understanding and hides from them.

Stop being patronizing, I have the right to ask questions on subjects where I lack knowledge, and typically answer skeptics Socratically, via sincere questions!

I do not see that he is suggesting you do not have that right. We all do. But once it is clear that questions have been provided with valid answers and no further reason or evidence is provided to reject those answers, a person should not just keep repeating the questions--or their points either--as if they remain unaddressed.

 

[Tiberius]

I wish he would stick to a basic vocabulary and stop unnecessarily inserting unusual words like variegated. It makes his sentences needlessly complex and confusing, while failing to provide any appearance that he understands what he is attempting to discuss. His previous use of binary pair to reference mating between two individuals is another example. Essentially, he was referring to a foursome and not a twosome.

The first rule of clear and unambiguous writing:

Don't use a large word when a diminutive lexeme is sufficient to provide adequate comprehension.

 

[BilliardsBall]

LOL!! You used the "assumed" word again. That puts the burden of proof show that it is assumed upon you. Since these difference have been measured, and in fact have been measured using different methods, which of course give different answers since they were measuring different things. it appears that you are not being exactly honest in your use of that term. And you misunderstood the math. Go back and look at it again. That is not the figure that I had. I don't know where you got that from. There would be at least 30 trillion mutations. If one out of one million, a ridiculous pessimistic number, then there would be 30 million positive mutations. You appear to somehow have gotten positive mutations conflated with all mutations.

If you want to go through the math we can do so step by step.

I already posted the math, using the numbers you gave, you had 300M total mutations yields 32M actual mutations in the species--an extraordinary, overreaching claim, ridiculous on its face.

Your trend, however, is to change your assertions after I call you out. So I see no point in further discussions on this matter. You may have the last word.