Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[joelr]

@joelr

What I have observed is the living system changes to survive.

That exposes the life has an intent. That busts up a bunch of peer review.

Most mutations don't help though. It's through huge numbers and time when we get something to help. Most species die off. So that has to be considered also.
If life had intent where would the intent be?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Most mutations don't help though. It's through huge numbers and time when we get something to help. Most species die off. So that has to be considered also.
If life had intent where would the intent be?

But it is not true that through huge numbers of mutations we get something to help. Here is an analogy. Take the text of the King James Bible which has over 3 million characters in it. Now randomly start changing individual letters to some other random letter. It will not lead to War and Peace.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But it is not true that through huge numbers of mutations we get something to help. Here is an analogy. Take the text of the King James Bible which has over 3 million characters in it. Now randomly start changing individual letters to some other random letter. It will not lead to War and Peace.

You just made the error of assuming orthogenesis.

 

[Bthoth]

Most mutations don't help though. It's through huge numbers and time when we get something to help. Most species die off. So that has to be considered also.
If life had intent where would the intent be?

the same cause of a heart beat or breathing.

About like adding water to seeds and soil, the plant just starts growing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A rational mind should be able to see that eyesight, and hearing, and taste, and all the different body systems we have, etc. don't just develop because it would come in handy.

Natural selection.

A rational mind should be able to see that life doesn't come from an explosion.

Strawman.

How can all the different seasons, and planets, and gravity, and rainfall, and temperatures being just what we need,

They don't exist "for us". We (and everything else that is alive) evolved to fit the specific environment on the planet we inhabit, not the other way round

You remind me of the analogy of the two frogs sitting by a random puddle where one says to the other "look at how perfect this puddle is for us to live, surely it was specially created just for us to live here".

Is the puddle there for the purpose of the frogs? Or are the frogs there because the puddle is?

and plants that grow food that we can eat and even tastes good, just happen to be here?

No, they don't "just happen" to be here.

And some plants even produce material we can use for clothing.

And some other plants are poisonous. So what?

It wasn't false. He said there is no human being alive that did not have humans for parents.

And he was right. And I explained multiple times now how it's not just right for humans currently alive, but historically as well.
But for some reason you are conveniently not responding to those explanations. Why is that?

That would be putting man in a position of always existing.

It would not and I explained twice now how it is not. You ignored it both times. Why?

Something that can't be proven. Just like you say we can't prove there is a God. Now you are changing it to hominids.

It can be demonstrated.

Maybe you shouldn't rely so heavily on the internet for your whole source of truth.

Mayby you should read something other then the bible.

 

[Secret Chief]

But it is not true that through huge numbers of mutations we get something to help. Here is an analogy. Take the text of the King James Bible which has over 3 million characters in it. Now randomly start changing individual letters to some other random letter. It will not lead to War and Peace.

That's so stupid it's not even analogous. Successful mutations tend to be passed on, unsuccessful not.

 

[joelr]

But it is not true that through huge numbers of mutations we get something to help. Here is an analogy. Take the text of the King James Bible which has over 3 million characters in it. Now randomly start changing individual letters to some other random letter. It will not lead to War and Peace.

Again, as I said, you are arguing against magic, not evolution. Only gods do magic, and we do not see any magic. So you are also anti-god.

In the 1960 apologist/creationists came up with the anti-evolution strawman "I have never seen a monkey turn into a human."
Because they were morons.

A proper analogy at least closer to what is happening is ONE word would occasionally change in any of the billions of copies of the Bible. Most making no sense and would be ignored or the book would be thrown away for the mistake.
Occasionally a word might appear that enhanced peoples understanding of what the author was trying to say, make it more readable to the average person and the word stayed when reprints were done.

The idea here that it is "not true" that adaptations don't help a species is about as misinformed as saying germs don't make people sick.
You truly do not care about what is actually true.

Some examples of mutations that helped humans:

Lactose Tolerance​

The domestication of plants and animals roughly 10,000 years ago profoundly changed human diets, and it gave those individuals who could best digest the new foods a selective advantage. The best understood of these adaptations is lactose tolerance (Sabeti et al., 2006; Bersaglieri et al., 2004). The ability to digest lactose, a sugar found in milk, usually disappears before adulthood in mammals, and the same is true in most human populations. However, for some people, including a large fraction of individuals of European descent, the ability to break down lactose persists because of a mutation in the lactase gene (LCT). This suggests that the allele became common in Europe because of increased nutrition from cow's milk, which became available after the domestication of cattle. This hypothesis was eventually confirmed by Todd Bersaglieri and his colleagues, who demonstrated that the lactase persistence allele is common in Europeans (nearly 80% of people of European descent carry this allele), and it has evidence of a selective sweep spanning roughly 1 million base pairs (1 megabase). Indeed, lactose tolerance is one of the strongest signals of selection seen anywhere in the genome. Sarah Tishkoff and colleagues subsequently found a distinct LCT m

Malaria Resistance​

The development of agriculture also changed the selective pressures on humans in another way: Increased population density made the transmission of infectious diseases easier, and it probably expanded the already substantial role of pathogens as agents of natural selection. That role is reflected in the traces left by selection in human genetic diversity; multiple loci associated with disease resistance have been identified as probable sites of selection. In most cases, the resistance is to the same disease—malaria (Kwiatkowski, 2005).


Malaria's power to drive selection is not surprising, as it is one of the human population's oldest diseases and remains one of the greatest causes of morbidity and mortality in the world today, infecting hundreds of millions of people and killing 1 to 2 million children in Africa each year. In fact, malaria was responsible for the first case of positive selection demonstrated genetically in humans. In the 1940s and 1950s, J. B. S. Haldane and A. C. Allison demonstrated that the geographical distribution of the sickle-cell mutation (Glu6Val) in the beta hemoglobin gene (HBB) was limited to Africa and correlated with malaria endemicity, and that individuals who carry the sickle-cell trait are resistant to malaria (Allison, 1954). Since then, many more alleles for malaria resistance have shown evidence of selection, including more mutations in HBB, as well as mutations causing other red blood cell disorders (e.g., a-thalassemia, G6PD deficiency, and ovalocytosis) (Kwiatkowski, 2005).

Pigmentation​

As proto-Europeans and Asians moved northward out of Africa, they experienced less sunlight and colder temperature, new environmental forces that exerted selective pressure on the migrants. Exactly why reduced sunlight should be a potent selective force is still debated, but it has become clear that humans have experienced positive selection at numerous genes to finely tune the amount of skin pigment they produce, depending on the amount of sunlight exposure.


The role of selection in controlling human pigmentation is not a new idea; in fact, it was first advanced by William Wells in 1813, long before Darwin's formulation of natural selection (Wells, 1818). In recent years, signals of positive selection have been identified in many genes, with some signals solely in Europeans, some solely in Asians, and some shared across both continents (Lao et al., 2007; McEvoy et al., 2006; Williamson et al., 2007). Evidence for purifying selection has also been found to maintain dark skin color in Africa, where sunlight exposure is great.

A good example of selection for lighter pigmentation is the gene SLC24A5, which was one of the first to be characterized. Rebecca Lamason and her colleagues identified a mutation in the zebrafish homologue of this gene that is responsible for pigmentation phenotype. The investigators then demonstrated that a human variant in the gene explains roughly one-third of the variation in pigmentation between Europeans and West Africans, and that the European variant had likely been a target of selection (Lamason et al., 2005). In related work, Angela Hancock and her colleagues examined many genes involved in metabolism, and they showed that alleles of these genes show evidence of positive selection and correlate strongly with climate, suggesting that humans adapted to cooler climates by changing their metabolic rates (Hancock et al., 2008).



Are there any other creationist lies you want to pretend are real (or failed to know from lack of learning and fact checking)?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Again, as I said, you are arguing against magic, not evolution. Only gods do magic, and we do not see any magic. So you are also anti-god.

In the 1960 apologist/creationists came up with the anti-evolution strawman "I have never seen a monkey turn into a human."
Because they were morons.

A proper analogy at least closer to what is happening is ONE word would occasionally change in any of the billions of copies of the Bible. Most making no sense and would be ignored or the book would be thrown away for the mistake.
Occasionally a word might appear that enhanced peoples understanding of what the author was trying to say, make it more readable to the average person and the word stayed when reprints were done.

The idea here that it is "not true" that adaptations don't help a species is about as misinformed as saying germs don't make people sick.
You truly do not care about what is actually true.

Some examples of mutations that helped humans:

Lactose Tolerance​

The domestication of plants and animals roughly 10,000 years ago profoundly changed human diets, and it gave those individuals who could best digest the new foods a selective advantage. The best understood of these adaptations is lactose tolerance (Sabeti et al., 2006; Bersaglieri et al., 2004). The ability to digest lactose, a sugar found in milk, usually disappears before adulthood in mammals, and the same is true in most human populations. However, for some people, including a large fraction of individuals of European descent, the ability to break down lactose persists because of a mutation in the lactase gene (LCT). This suggests that the allele became common in Europe because of increased nutrition from cow's milk, which became available after the domestication of cattle. This hypothesis was eventually confirmed by Todd Bersaglieri and his colleagues, who demonstrated that the lactase persistence allele is common in Europeans (nearly 80% of people of European descent carry this allele), and it has evidence of a selective sweep spanning roughly 1 million base pairs (1 megabase). Indeed, lactose tolerance is one of the strongest signals of selection seen anywhere in the genome. Sarah Tishkoff and colleagues subsequently found a distinct LCT m

Malaria Resistance​

The development of agriculture also changed the selective pressures on humans in another way: Increased population density made the transmission of infectious diseases easier, and it probably expanded the already substantial role of pathogens as agents of natural selection. That role is reflected in the traces left by selection in human genetic diversity; multiple loci associated with disease resistance have been identified as probable sites of selection. In most cases, the resistance is to the same disease—malaria (Kwiatkowski, 2005).


Malaria's power to drive selection is not surprising, as it is one of the human population's oldest diseases and remains one of the greatest causes of morbidity and mortality in the world today, infecting hundreds of millions of people and killing 1 to 2 million children in Africa each year. In fact, malaria was responsible for the first case of positive selection demonstrated genetically in humans. In the 1940s and 1950s, J. B. S. Haldane and A. C. Allison demonstrated that the geographical distribution of the sickle-cell mutation (Glu6Val) in the beta hemoglobin gene (HBB) was limited to Africa and correlated with malaria endemicity, and that individuals who carry the sickle-cell trait are resistant to malaria (Allison, 1954). Since then, many more alleles for malaria resistance have shown evidence of selection, including more mutations in HBB, as well as mutations causing other red blood cell disorders (e.g., a-thalassemia, G6PD deficiency, and ovalocytosis) (Kwiatkowski, 2005).

Pigmentation​

As proto-Europeans and Asians moved northward out of Africa, they experienced less sunlight and colder temperature, new environmental forces that exerted selective pressure on the migrants. Exactly why reduced sunlight should be a potent selective force is still debated, but it has become clear that humans have experienced positive selection at numerous genes to finely tune the amount of skin pigment they produce, depending on the amount of sunlight exposure.


The role of selection in controlling human pigmentation is not a new idea; in fact, it was first advanced by William Wells in 1813, long before Darwin's formulation of natural selection (Wells, 1818). In recent years, signals of positive selection have been identified in many genes, with some signals solely in Europeans, some solely in Asians, and some shared across both continents (Lao et al., 2007; McEvoy et al., 2006; Williamson et al., 2007). Evidence for purifying selection has also been found to maintain dark skin color in Africa, where sunlight exposure is great.

A good example of selection for lighter pigmentation is the gene SLC24A5, which was one of the first to be characterized. Rebecca Lamason and her colleagues identified a mutation in the zebrafish homologue of this gene that is responsible for pigmentation phenotype. The investigators then demonstrated that a human variant in the gene explains roughly one-third of the variation in pigmentation between Europeans and West Africans, and that the European variant had likely been a target of selection (Lamason et al., 2005). In related work, Angela Hancock and her colleagues examined many genes involved in metabolism, and they showed that alleles of these genes show evidence of positive selection and correlate strongly with climate, suggesting that humans adapted to cooler climates by changing their metabolic rates (Hancock et al., 2008).



Are there any other creationist lies you want to pretend are real (or failed to know from lack of learning and fact checking)?

So beneficial mutations include lactose intolerance and sickle cell anemia. Go to the sub reddits for those and tell them the good news. And pigmentation is already built in by the Creator.

 

[joelr]

the same cause of a heart beat or breathing.

About like adding water to seeds and soil, the plant just starts growing.

Or a mutated cell taking over humans cells to grow cancer or a mesocyclone organizing rear flank winds and forming a tornado.
I don't see intent there, there are just natural forces at work.

Solar systems form, gravity causes stars to form and sling out into space and they gather dust which becomes planets. There really isn't intent, it's just stuff happening.
Life also gets older and cells break down leaving the life to terrible disease and breaking down or it's vitality.
Does life also have intent to die?

In this universe everything is governed by probability. If something can happen, given the odds and enough time and places, it will happen.

In this universe life is possible and happened at least once. I don't see that all of this has intent, it is just what's happening here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You say facts are demonstrable. Demonstrate to me how and why eyesight and hearing exist.

Sorry, I'm not going to explain to you an evolutionary process of several hundred millions years in a forum post.
You are welcome to read up for yourself if you are actually interested (are you?).

Here's a good place to start:

Evolution of Hearing

Evolution of hearing dates back to some 250 million years ago along with mammalian evolution. To understand the evolution of hearing, one needs to understand the basic mammalian evolution first. Beginning of mammal evolution first seen in Triassic period about 230 million years ago, during which...

irispublishers.com

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And there are no partially developed organs in living things today

Nor were there ever.
If you would understand the basics of evolution, you'ld know this.
But you have already demonstrated that all you can do is argue strawmen.

So, macroevolution is not happening and has not happened in the past. And the genetics stops all jumps.

Evolution doesn't work by "jumps" and macro-evolution isn't actually a seperate process.
Strawmanning again.

So evolution is false and the billions of years speculation is falsified also.

At best, the strawman version you argue is false.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To me you are comparing apples with oranges. I'm not saying something like a dark haired predator can't be eliminated from a region that always has snow, because it can't sneak up on its prey to survive. That's a totally different kind of evolution.

It's not. It's just natural selection.

I am talking about getting something like eyesight or hearing to begin with.

It's gradual. It's not like one day a creature with no eyes gave birth to a creature with eyes.
Just like it's not the case that one day a latin speaking mother raised a spanish speaking child.
You should inform yourself.

Just because it would be convenient wouldn't make it evolve.

There is no intention in evolution, true. So yes, it's not like nature "decided" that creatures should have vision.
It's rather the case that a mutation made an organism able to tell the difference between light and dark which gave it an advantage over those that couldn't.
Then a mutation made one of those organisms able to tell the direction of the light, which in turn gave that one an advantage over those that couldn't.
Etc.

There is no "plan" or "intention" or "purpose" or "destiny" here.
There is only what works (or not) in the moment for the specific habitat / niche it inhabits.

Natural selection.

Why has man not evolved to be able to fly?

Why would you think it would have to?

Your question, btw, once again seems to imply that one day a creature that couldn't fly gave birth to a creature that could.
Again, evolution doesn't work that way. You seem to have much problems understanding gradualism.

Why don't we have eyes in the back of our head so we can see anything sneaking up on us?

Another question that only exposes your ignorance on the topic you wish to argue about.

So, why would eyesight or hearing just magically evolve?

There's nothing magical about it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here's the thing - I do know God is real. I can't prove it to you that he is real, but God has proven to me that he is real.

Yeah, like how aliens from alpha centauri have "proven" to alien abductees they are "real".

Ever heared the statement "you don't know it, if you can't show it"?
It certainly applies here.

How? you might ask. I have done what he said in his word and he has answered me multiple times.

Or so you believe anyway.
Muslims believe the same thing. You can't both be right. But you CAN both be wrong.

I have been healed several times in such a way that I was positive it was him.

Just like muslims, scientologists and every other religious believer under the sun who believes in different gods then you do.
Again, you can't all be right, since your religions are mutually exclusive. So at most only one of you is right. But as you all make the same type of claims based on the same kind of "evidence" (that you can't show to anyone and which can't be independently verified), it seems infinitely more probable that you are all wrong.

I had another time where I was alone in my house, so there is no way anyone heard me. I had a bad problem really bothering me. I knelt beside my bed and sincerely cried out to God about my problem. When I got to church, I was ushering that day, but I stepped inside to hear what was being said. Our minister said - "I don't know why I am saying this. It doesn't have anything to do with the lesson today. I just felt to." And he gave the answer to what I had cried out to God about.

An example of counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

As far as your evolution theory, I just don't believe it.

Yeah, we know. And the reason you don't believe it has nothing to do with the actual theory (since you don't even understand it, as you have shown multiple times now). The reason you don't believe it, is because you religiously / dogmatically believe something else.

Evolution is just a man made theory - It can't be proven.

Yeah. Like germ theory of desease, theory of relativity, plate tectonic theory, heliocentric theory, quantum theory, atomic theory, ... and every other theory in science.
Ironically, evolution is the most established / best supported of all these theories.

So, if THAT is your objection to evolution (man-made and "can't be proven"), I take it that you therefor reject ALL of science?

It can't even be proven that eyesight or hearing, or even teeth for that matter, just evolved either.

No theory in science can be "proven". Proof is for abstract mathematics.
Theories can only be supported with evidence.
And evolution theory most certainly is extremely supported. It's no stretch to say it is among the BEST supported theories in all of science. Probably THE best supported.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's possible God created things in such a way that they appear much older than they really are.

Then your god is a deceptive liar.

Then your god would have gone OUT OF HIS WAY to make everything look AS IF all living things share ancestry, AS IF earth has a 4.5 billion year old history - complete with "fake" craters from ancient meteor impacts that never happened, "fake" geological layers of supervolcanic eruptions that never happened, "fake" fossils of creatures that never lived, etc....

This is called planting false evidence.

Humans also have loads of ERV's shared with other species, thus dating back to periods long before humans existed. ERV's are like genetic scars - remnants of ancient viral infections in ancestors that got inserted into the genome. So this god would then also have created "fake" scars; remnants of infections that never happened.


That would be the equivalent of creating a brand new car that looks like it was a car crash without that ever happening.
So it would be the equivalent of creating a brand new car that looks like this:

So is that what you are going to claim happened? Is your god a liar?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You seem to be very bitter. So I don't believe I will interact with you unless you can tame it down.

I have no problem whatsoever with you disagreeing with me. But I try to be respectful and hope for that from anyone debating with me.

There was nothing "disrespectful" in his post.

As usual with creationists, you confuse disagreement and the pointing out of your mistakes with personal insults and "bitterness".
I guess it's the standard psychological defense mechanism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But it is not true that through huge numbers of mutations we get something to help

Except that it is.

Here is an analogy. Take the text of the King James Bible which has over 3 million characters in it. Now randomly start changing individual letters to some other random letter. It will not lead to War and Peace.

False analogy is false.

 

[Bthoth]

Or a mutated cell taking over humans cells to grow cancer or a mesocyclone organizing rear flank winds and forming a tornado.
I don't see intent there, there are just natural forces at work.

Exactly. That progression is just natural. About like accretion, the standard.

Solar systems form, gravity causes stars to form and sling out into space and they gather dust which becomes planets. There really isn't intent, it's just stuff happening.

i know. It's just the natural process.

Life also gets older and cells break down leaving the life to terrible disease and breaking down or it's vitality.
Does life also have intent to die?

Aging is normal. Most all living systems, procreate, which is the initial life giving a portion of itself to live into another generation (surviving)

In this universe everything is governed by probability. If something can happen, given the odds and enough time and places, it will happen.

There is that compliance angle, a range of probabilities, uncertainties of a given set (field). I am aware of the principles.

In this universe life is possible and happened at least once. I don't see that all of this has intent, it is just what's happening here.

OK, so back to a range (universe of possibilities). Yet, the life, the individual living systems are surviving within each given environment.

Once the process is occurring, the living system is. Not an outside cause but naturally occurring based on the energy upon the particles (mass). When in an environment that enables the oscillations to sustain itself, the light (energy) will consume to sustain itself.

Nothing different than what is observed but the perspective is different. That's it. The living process is based on energy upon mass sustaining itself. The energy of nature is not 'what is usable' but the light (electromagnetic fields) oscillating upon mass (elements). That's the 'perspective' to identify/observe... there of describe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So beneficial mutations include lactose intolerance

Read it again.

pigmentation is already built in by the Creator.

Irrelevant even if true. Skin pigmentation evolves under selective pressure.

I've wondered aloud a few times on these threads about what motivates zealous, scientifically unsophisticated creationists to come onto the Internet and argue against the science in support of magic. I've asked you, and like all others asked, there was no reply, which is also a mystery to me. What prevents such people from explaining what they're trying to accomplish? You've assumed a most unenviable role here, one guaranteed to generate responses that you won't like reading. Yet here you are. One can only speculate "what fixation feeds this fever."

Those last words are song lyrics. Here's more from that song:

What fixation feeds this fever?
As the full moon pales and climbs
Am I living truth or rank deceiver?
Am I the victim or the crime?

And so I wrestle with the angel
To see who'll reap the seeds I sow
Am I the driver or the driven?
Will I be damned to be forgiven?

Here's another question I've asked you and several others which never gets an answer. If you knew that you had guessed wrong about gods, would you still consider your god belief and how it has affected your demeanor and behavior something that made life better for you?

And I'll add another: Are you familiar with Pascal's Wager and his assertion that if one chooses to believe in Pascal's god and has guessed incorrectly, that there has been no cost to him for that? Do you agree?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Read it again.

Irrelevant even if true. Skin pigmentation evolves under selective pressure.

I've wondered aloud a few times on these threads about what motivates zealous, scientifically unsophisticated creationists to come onto the Internet and argue against the science in support of magic. I've asked you, and like all others asked, there was no reply, which is also a mystery to me. What prevents such people from explaining what they're trying to accomplish? You've assumed a most unenviable role here, one guaranteed to generate responses that you won't like reading. Yet here you are. One can only speculate "what fixation feeds this fever."

Those last words are song lyrics. Here's more from that song:

What fixation feeds this fever?
As the full moon pales and climbs
Am I living truth or rank deceiver?
Am I the victim or the crime?

And so I wrestle with the angel
To see who'll reap the seeds I sow
Am I the driver or the driven?
Will I be damned to be forgiven?

Here's another question I've asked you and several others which never gets an answer. If you knew that you had guessed wrong about gods, would you still consider your god belief and how it has affected your demeanor and behavior something that made life better for you?

And I'll add another: Are you familiar with Pascal's Wager and his assertion that if one chooses to believe in Pascal's god and has guessed incorrectly, that there has been no cost to him for that? Do you agree?

Pascal's wager was for those that do not believe in the God on the Bible.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Pascal's wager was for those that do not believe in the God on the Bible.

Yes, I know, but that's irrelevant to the point I made.

I wasn't expecting anything responsive from you, and you didn't disappoint.

I assume that you don't give answers when they would embarrass you. What would be the embarrassing answer to why you won't explain your motivation? Probably that you are trying to get into heaven and hope God sees how you martyr yourself here. If it were that you were trying to teach or enlighten or save souls, you could have said that.

Also, why you won't answer my second question is likely also because your answer is one that you don't feel like you can say out loud - you can't say yes without fearing offending your god or considering the possibility that you have made a mistake. But if your answer had been that yours has been a great life as a zealous Internet creationist, you'd have said so. That's also probably why you prefer evasion and deflection to lying - the boss is watching.

And the same for the third question. You won't answer whether you agree with Pascal because the cost of your god belief has tremendous to you. If your answer were that choosing Pascal's god cost you nothing, you could also easily have said so.