Can any creationist tell me ...

[Guy Threepwood]

That’s not correct. There only needs to be the increased probability of producing more offspring for each case that arises. If you magnify that probability to cover every creature of that species that has good mutation and then repeat it over millions of years, then that probability becomes quite high. It’s possible that millions of mutations never make a difference, because they don’t spread enough. But time and quantity solve it.

Also, a mutation will often spread a bit even without helping survival. Then you would have a group of creatures with a higher probability of survival. It’s all in the statistics. It’s entirely possible that many mutations spread without making an initial difference.

If you have a thousand birds with a particular mutated gene and a thousand which don’t, and the gene increases survival by 0.05%, then you’d expect a proportional increase in the population with that gene; 0.1% of 1000 = 5. Those 5 make a difference in the long term.

As above, well of course! if you grant that this tiny tiny advantage is somehow retained and spread to a extraordinarily successful 50% infiltration of the entire population first.. regardless of being insignificant - regardless of any natural selection of the gene whatsoever--??

then of course, those pennies would eventually add up- But with this human benefit of forethought removed, there's simply nothing in the algorithm that singles this insignificantly beneficial mutation out for such special treatment - over the overwhelming number of random mutations which remember, would be neutral to deleterious. - under this same 'saving all the mutation regardless' algorithm, the marginally inferior ones would be retained in far greater numbers and you have devolution.

i.e. survival of the fittest in no way demands survival of the fitter-

Even then, the other problem here is a catch 22 of gene pool stability- the large stable gene pools, over large periods of time, required to multiply your tiny tiny advantage into a few more offspring...are also the populations that most resist evolutionary change. Which is why we see species like Horseshoe crabs in stasis for 100's of millions of years with no evolution. Change requires pressure, stress, applied to a relatively small population- and this is even used as an 'explanation' for why intermediates are so hard to find.

As for the eye, you can have a more basic eye, starting with a single light-sensitive cell. Dawkins perfectly explains it all here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X1iwLqM2t0

Well he says that you start with a single sheet of light sensitive cells before moving on to cups etc... - so you tell me, what advantage would I give a blind fish, by gluing a sheet of light sensitive cells to it's forehead?

 

[metis]

Even then, the other problem here is a catch 22 of gene pool stability- the large stable gene pools, over large periods of time, required to multiply your tiny tiny advantage into a few more offspring...are also the populations that most resist evolutionary change.

Which is why organisms within smaller gene pools tend to evolve at quicker rates.

Which is why we see species like Horseshoe crabs in stasis for 100's of millions of years with no evolution.

Undoubtedly they've changed since outside appearances do not always disclose what's taken place inside. All material objects tend to change over time and genes are material objects.

Also, aquatic organisms tend to evolve more slowly since the conditions under or near the water tend to be less variable from season to season than what land animals have to adapt to.

 

[scott777]

As above, well of course! if you grant that this tiny tiny advantage is somehow retained and spread to a extraordinarily successful 50% infiltration of the entire population first.. regardless of being insignificant - regardless of any natural selection of the gene whatsoever--??

then of course, those pennies would eventually add up- But with this human benefit of forethought removed, there's simply nothing in the algorithm that singles this insignificantly beneficial mutation out for such special treatment - over the overwhelming number of random mutations which remember, would be neutral to deleterious. - under this same 'saving all the mutation regardless' algorithm, the marginally inferior ones would be retained in far greater numbers and you have devolution.

i.e. survival of the fittest in no way demands survival of the fitter-

Even then, the other problem here is a catch 22 of gene pool stability- the large stable gene pools, over large periods of time, required to multiply your tiny tiny advantage into a few more offspring...are also the populations that most resist evolutionary change. Which is why we see species like Horseshoe crabs in stasis for 100's of millions of years with no evolution. Change requires pressure, stress, applied to a relatively small population- and this is even used as an 'explanation' for why intermediates are so hard to find.




Well he says that you start with a single sheet of light sensitive cells before moving on to cups etc... - so you tell me, what advantage would I give a blind fish, by gluing a sheet of light sensitive cells to it's forehead?

What I’m saying is a mutation can spread through a population just by chance, whether its beneficial or not. The inferior genes are more likely to result in non-propagation. But the genes which are neutral may spread, especially if the population is naturally flourishing. Once that has happened, an environmental factor might change, as they do all the time. If it happens that that mutation is then helpful for survival, the ones with the gene will propagate slightly better than the rest.

I’m not sure what you mean about gluing eyes to a fish. Are you being literal? I’m not saying modern fish evolved eyes. Primitive fish may have evolved eyes. Sensitivity to light could simply help a blind fish-type thing to avoid swimming into a rock when it’s chasing food or escaping a predator.

 

[blü 2]

Why do you address creationists, when I fact they don't have a clue either about how old the earth actually is

Because creationists make the claim that each species, or at least each genus, of living things is the result of special creation in Eden; and therefore the theory of evolution is their sworn enemy.

That the earth is only 6000 years old.

'Young Earth creationists' say that, not all of them.

When actually it's not the bible that is at fault,

Each of the bible's books reflects the understanding of the world in the time and place it was written. For example, it consistently says the earth is flat and the center of the universe; and there are serious numbers of errors of science and of history. But that doesn't stop it being an intriguing ancient document.

And there are two floods of waters that came upon the earth.

On what we presently know, at no time in the 4.5 bn years or so since the earth formed has the earth ever been entirely under water, or even close to being so.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Because creationists make the claim that each species, or at least each genus, of living things is the result of special creation in Eden; and therefore the theory of evolution is their sworn enemy.
'Young Earth creationists' say that, not all of them.
Each of the bible's books reflects the understanding of the world in the time and place it was written. For example, it consistently says the earth is flat and the center of the universe; and there are serious numbers of errors of science and of history. But that doesn't stop it being an intriguing ancient document.
On what we presently know, at no time in the 4.5 bn years or so since the earth formed has the earth ever been entirely under water, or even close to being so.

So I suppose that you know of someone that was there 4.5 bn years, to know the earth not being covered over with water.

I'm sure that there are people in the scientific world that would like to meet such a person who lived 4.5 bn years ago to give evidence whether or not the earth was covered with water.

 

[blü 2]

So I suppose that you know of someone that was there 4.5 bn years, to know the earth not being covered over with water.

Well, I know I wasn't there.

And I know Yahweh wasn't there either. He doesn't exist before about 1500 BCE.

Meanwhile, perhaps you'd like to check the earth science and see what we know and how we know it?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Well, I know I wasn't there.

And I know Yahweh wasn't there either. He doesn't exist before about 1500 BCE.

Meanwhile, perhaps you'd like to check the earth science and see what we know and how we know it?

What you mean is check what man's teachings will say.

Now why would I want to do that.

Seeing these people have no actual proof themselves to back what they presume to be.
There was no one actually there to know or to give proof. What was and what was not.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What I’m saying is a mutation can spread through a population just by chance, whether its beneficial or not.

I understand, and the vast vast majority of those mutations spread would be not (beneficial), far more likely to be deleterious - so natural selection still works, the fittest are selected, but would on balance, be less fit than the preceding generation.

If you photocopied an office memo from successive generations rather than a master copy, same thing right?; random errors are introduced and exacerbated in each generation. Beneficial errors are not impossible no, and would certainly be selected for, they are just far far less common than significantly deleterious errors. And so the trend is one that inevitably succumbs to entropy; decline, decay, disorder, decomposition, collapse, even while the 'best' (least corrupted) of each generation is being naturally selected at all times.

This is not what we see in life, which far better reflects the model of a master copy for each plan, which like any good design, comes equipped with a limited capacity for adaptation to variations in requirements or 'environment'

i.e. adaptation in both cases functions very well as a design feature, very poorly as a design mechanism

I’m not sure what you mean about gluing eyes to a fish. Are you being literal? I’m not saying modern fish evolved eyes. Primitive fish may have evolved eyes. Sensitivity to light could simply help a blind fish-type thing to avoid swimming into a rock when it’s chasing food or escaping a predator.

If we take Dawkins literally yes, all you need is a 'flat sheet of light sensitive cells' and the evolution of the eye is off and running

Point being; this does nothing to help a blind 'fish' avoid anything.

In order to have a practical sensitivity to light, each of these cells needs to have it's response; chemical / electrical, gathered and combined, sent via an optic nerve of some kind, to where it can be processed/ used to trigger a beneficial physical response- which in one of it's simplest forms, would be to at least reverse the direction of rotation on a bacterial flagellar motor

So as we began, all this, even the simplest functional eye, is an absurdly improbable thing to appear spontaneously in an individual by random mutation. And anything less offers no advantage to be selected for. This is a problem that has become far trickier the more we learn scientifically.

While Dawkins retreats in the opposite direction, the quaint, superficial, Victorian model of reality Darwinism was conceived in, where cells are amorphous blobs of mucus, which just naturally seem to take care of the tricky details somehow, so we can just skip over all that

 

[blü 2]

What you mean is check what man's teachings will say.

Now why would I want to do that.

Unless you're interested in answers to the question, What's true in reality?, no reason at all.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Unless you're interested in answers to the question, What's true in reality?, no reason at all.

If I may say with all due respect.

I do not nor will I follow the teachings of man's.
Alot of people who go the churches, set there and listen to man's teachings.

Then come out not knowing a thing what the Bible actually does teach.

I use to be one of them, until one Sunday morning, our Pastor said to us in the congregation, That he could tell us what ever he wanted to, all because you people come here each and every Sunday morning and set here with your bible closed, Not knowing what I am telling you if it's even in the bible.

That was about 45 years ago or so, but ever since then I started studying the Bible. And found many things that people are being taught is not even in the bible.

I have not nor do I belong to any church for this very reason.

So when ever someone points out for me to go here or there to listen to man's teachings, it's useless, How does a man or anyone know for sure without a doubt what really Actually happened 4.5 bn years ago ?

All I see what there doing is giving their assumptions and speculations of not Actually not knowing if it really happened that way.

You this is exactly what people are being taught in the churches on many things.and they don't even see that they are being deceived.
Is it any wonder why Jesus said, "They be blind leaders of the blind" If the blind leadeth the blind, both shall fall into the ditch ?

All I need is my bible,and many other tools to help me Translate Hebrew and Greek language's into English.
That will help me break down certain words to get a better understanding of what is being said.

Therefore I do not need the teachings of man's.that are misleading people.

How many people whether Christian or not, that knows about the 3 earth ages.

The first earth age is where the dinosaurs bones came from.this was way before this world age came to be.

How many people actually knows about the flood of water that happened way before the flood of Noah's.
This flood of water, Noah was not even born yet nor was Adam and Eve created yet.
It's all there within the pages of the bible, What happen and what caused God to destroy that world of the dinosaurs.

That now we find the dinosaurs bones, which are God's witnesses of that world that then was.

 

[blü 2]

All I see what there doing is giving their assumptions and speculations

That isn't true of science, which reasons honestly and transparently from examinable evidence and opens its findings to criticism and debate. Its conclusions are empirical and inductive, so are always tentative, but because they're falsifiable, they gain strength the longer they survive scrutiny and remain unfalsified. The process is one of constant reexamination, deeper understanding, steady improvement.

Religion doesn't work from evidence but from story. It can be anything anyone cares to imagine.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As above, well of course! if you grant that this tiny tiny advantage is somehow retained and spread to a extraordinarily successful 50% infiltration of the entire population first.. regardless of being insignificant - regardless of any natural selection of the gene whatsoever--??

then of course, those pennies would eventually add up- But with this human benefit of forethought removed, there's simply nothing in the algorithm that singles this insignificantly beneficial mutation out for such special treatment - over the overwhelming number of random mutations which remember, would be neutral to deleterious. - under this same 'saving all the mutation regardless' algorithm, the marginally inferior ones would be retained in far greater numbers and you have devolution.

i.e. survival of the fittest in no way demands survival of the fitter-

Even then, the other problem here is a catch 22 of gene pool stability- the large stable gene pools, over large periods of time, required to multiply your tiny tiny advantage into a few more offspring...are also the populations that most resist evolutionary change. Which is why we see species like Horseshoe crabs in stasis for 100's of millions of years with no evolution. Change requires pressure, stress, applied to a relatively small population- and this is even used as an 'explanation' for why intermediates are so hard to find.




Well he says that you start with a single sheet of light sensitive cells before moving on to cups etc... - so you tell me, what advantage would I give a blind fish, by gluing a sheet of light sensitive cells to it's forehead?

Being able to tell detect which direction light is coming from, for starters.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Being able to tell detect which direction light is coming from, for starters.

Try it yourself, close your eyes and stick an array of photocells on your forehead- does it work?

 

[Faithofchristian]

That isn't true of science, which reasons honestly and transparently from examinable evidence and opens its findings to criticism and debate. Its conclusions are empirical and inductive, so are always tentative, but because they're falsifiable, they gain strength the longer they survive scrutiny and remain unfalsified. The process is one of constant reexamination, deeper understanding, steady improvement.

Religion doesn't work from evidence but from story. It can be anything anyone cares to imagine.

Religion most definitely works from evidence.
Take for instance the book of Isaiah on the bible, Now take what the archaeologist found in the cave at the dead Sea, which are called the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Which they haved dated the great scroll of Isaiah to 750 bc. Which has word pre word found in the Bible of the book of Isaiah.

And what the dinosaurs bones which they haved dated to be Millions of years old.

Which the bible confirm's.

But you as other people have no clue what the Bible will say or confirm's.

You only look at the bible as only stories.

But little do people realize there are things in the bible that confirm's the dinosaurs bones and the earth it's self as being Millions if not Billions of years old.

But because of those Christians who follow there church teachings, have no clue themselves what the Bible does actually does teach.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Try it yourself, close your eyes and stick an array of photocells on your forehead- does it work?

Being able to detect light is a huge advantage over not being able to detect light. Our circadian rhythms are modulated in part, by sunlight. So being able to detect light not only can help an organism better navigate it's environment, but it also helps set our natural body clocks.

In other words, being able to see a little bit is more advantageous than not being able to see anything at all. Is that not obvious?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Being able to detect light is a huge advantage over not being able to detect light. Our circadian rhythms are modulated in part, by sunlight. So being able to detect light not only can help an organism better navigate it's environment, but it also helps set our natural body clocks.

In other words, being able to see a little bit is more advantageous than not being able to see anything at all. Is that not obvious?

does sticking the photocells to your head help you see?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

scientist will point their fingers at the creationist and say, you see your wrong the earth is not 6000 years as your bible claims it is.

Science doesn't acknowledge religion any more than it does any other non-scientific pursuit. Scientists also don't care whether you or I believe their conclusions, nor whether their conclusions contradict any beliefs generated by other methods.

Nor need you believe the scientists to enjoy and benefit from their discoveries, including evolution.

what these scientist do not realize, it's those creationists that are wrong and not the bible.

Scientists don't really care what creationists think or where their ideas come from. Those scientists that do, such as Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins, are not doing science when they speak out.

Similarly here though, if you go by most newspapers, magazines, TV documentaries, pop science in general- they would have you believe that belief in Darwinism is far higher than it really is.

Much of the world is fairly uneducated and not well trained in evaluating evidence critically. As their level of education goes up, especially scientific education, belief in creationism falls and belief in evolution climbs:

The following is a little dated - the number of god-believers in the US has fallen below 90% to about 75% now (source), but the trend is undoubtedly similar:

"In the US, 90% of the population believes in a personal God that interacts with them in reality. As soon as we look at the percentages of those who graduated college the number drops to 60%. We then look at scientists, most of whom have masters or doctorate degree's and the number drops more - down to 40%. With the last group - the "elite" scientists such as heads of research projects, department heads - the number drops all the way down to a mere 7%. Isn't it obvious that the belief in that which cannot be proven is most prevalent with the less educated?" - anon

an advantage must be significant enough that an individual produces significantly more offspring to ultimately significantly alter the gene pool

It is sufficient to produce litters or broods of the same number for gene pools to evolve.

A fully functional eye spontaneously appearing by random chance is absurdly improbable, and half an eye is useless, it offers no advantage to be selected for

Neither of those is the path evolution took.

Also, any argument that claims that the complexity observed in nature could not exist undesigned and uncreated has to explain how an entity that would be orders of magnitude more complex exists undesigned and uncreated

Also, your (implied) argument seems to be that the natural process of an eye or a cell evolving seems to complex to you to have occurred, therefore it is impossible, and that therefore, there must be an intelligent creator. That's not an argument with any persuasive power since its logically fallacious. The truth of an idea doesn't depend on one understanding how it can be true. I can't conceive of how Google searches so many files so quickly, but I'm not going to say that for that reason, it cannot, and that therefore divine intervention is required. I also can't conceive of a natural barrier to the speed of light, but so what?

The point is that both arguments from complexity, which are special pleading fallacies, and arguments from incredulity, are simply not good arguments against the science or for any religious doctrine.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

with this human benefit of forethought removed, there's simply nothing in the algorithm that singles this insignificantly beneficial mutation out for such special treatment

Being beneficial means conferring benefit, which means that it can be selected for.

we see species like Horseshoe crabs in stasis for 100's of millions of years with no evolution.

What you see are shells that don't change shape much, which suggests that those shapes are close to being optimal in a relatively stable environment. You don't see any changes in the organ systems, physiology, or biochemistry. The immune systems may be more robust now. The healing mechanisms may be more efficient. They might live longer, or move better.

So I suppose that you know of someone that was there 4.5 bn years, to know the earth not being covered over with water.

Not necessary. Reason properly applied to evidence allows us to deduce much about the past with great confidence. I'm going to go out on a limb here and try to predict some of your history that I was not there to observe (I'm assuming that you are a human being and not software): First, you were conceived. Then you developed in the womb.Then you were born and took your first breath. Later, you swallowed and digested food for the first time, then learned to walk, speak, and write.

How am I doing despite not being present for any of those events?

If you photocopied an office memo from successive generations rather than a master copy, same thing right?; random errors are introduced and exacerbated in each generation. Beneficial errors are not impossible no, and would certainly be selected for, they are just far far less common than significantly deleterious errors. And so the trend is one that inevitably succumbs to entropy; decline, decay, disorder, decomposition, collapse, even while the 'best' (least corrupted) of each generation is being naturally selected at all times.

If that argument were valid - if the analogy were apt - it would pertain to an intelligently created genome as well.You're overlooking the pressure that natural selection exerts on the inferior biological copies surviving to make even more inferior copies.

But you as other people have no clue what the Bible will say or confirm's.

The Bible confirms nothing except that it was written. Even the parts of it that are correct require external verification for confirmation. The scripture itself cannot do that.

It's odd that you think that unbelievers need to know what the Bible says to reject supernatural claims. It really doesn't matter if they are being read or fabricated realtime.

 

[SkepticThinker]

does sticking the photocells to your head help you see?

Are you being serious?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Science doesn't acknowledge religion any more than it does any other non-scientific pursuit. Scientists also don't care whether you or I believe their conclusions, nor whether their conclusions contradict any beliefs generated by other methods.

Nor need you believe the scientists to enjoy and benefit from their discoveries, including evolution.



Scientists don't really care what creationists think or where their ideas come from. Those scientists that do, such as Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins, are not doing science when they speak out.



Much of the world is fairly uneducated and not well trained in evaluating evidence critically. As their level of education goes up, especially scientific education, belief in creationism falls and belief in evolution climbs:

The following is a little dated - the number of god-believers in the US has fallen below 90% to about 75% now (source), but the trend is undoubtedly similar:

"In the US, 90% of the population believes in a personal God that interacts with them in reality. As soon as we look at the percentages of those who graduated college the number drops to 60%. We then look at scientists, most of whom have masters or doctorate degree's and the number drops more - down to 40%. With the last group - the "elite" scientists such as heads of research projects, department heads - the number drops all the way down to a mere 7%. Isn't it obvious that the belief in that which cannot be proven is most prevalent with the less educated?" - anon



It is sufficient to produce litters or broods of the same number for gene pools to evolve.



Neither of those is the path evolution took.

Also, any argument that claims that the complexity observed in nature could not exist undesigned and uncreated has to explain how an entity that would be orders of magnitude more complex exists undesigned and uncreated

Also, your (implied) argument seems to be that the natural process of an eye or a cell evolving seems to complex to you to have occurred, therefore it is impossible, and that therefore, there must be an intelligent creator. That's not an argument with any persuasive power since its logically fallacious. The truth of an idea doesn't depend on one understanding how it can be true. I can't conceive of how Google searches so many files so quickly, but I'm not going to say that for that reason, it cannot, and that therefore divine intervention is required. I also can't conceive of a natural barrier to the speed of light, but so what?

The point is that both arguments from complexity, which are special pleading fallacies, and arguments from incredulity, are simply not good arguments against the science or for any religious doctrine.

Who was more likely to believe in Piltdown man, canals on Mars, phrenology, steady state, string theory, big crunch...

scientists? or free thinking people?

The track record of scientists isn't exactly stellar on the big questions