Skwim
Veteran Member
I'm sorry you have trouble with the English language and the concept of evolution, perhaps if these issues are resolved we can talk about the subject in the future, but as it stands, have a nice day.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists DO believe in Natural Selection and Speciation
- Thread starter siweLSC
- Start date
@otokage
Hello.
-For T.Rex. Look at the roots of teeth. 9 inches of tooth outside, 2 inches of tooth inside. Not a strong attachment to the jaw. If they ate meat, they were destinied to lose all teeth, for they would be ripped out from the jaw. Prehistorical dental care should be needed, for replace all teeth.
They closed like a rake. Perfect to extract leaves from trees. Trees taken to mouth with those small arms
While moving, they moved like giant ducks. So, small animals would easy run away.
Some says (for teeth problem) they swallowed their prays whole. But their jaws were not as snakes.
Also for coprolite assumption and some bones of small dinosaurs found inside it. The base of this assumption is that coprolite is so big so it can only be T-Rex poop of course we know that being serious is another matter.
-Experiments on E.Coli. Those experiment showed spontaneous formation of E.Coli bacteria from simple elements? No.
And if an E.Coli would be created from a guided by scientists experiments, it will only shou that life can only be created from active work by an intelligent agent.
-Baramin cat was not more complex (i.e. it had no wings, feathers or tentacles, it was just a cat). It had more genetic potential. You can see how many dog races we have obtained from few original races. Its the same. The obtained races has not the genetic potential of the starting race. They have lost that potential. But complexity level is the same for all dogs, past and recent. They are all just dogs.
-Evidence for corruption? One of evidences is the advice to not marry close relatives.
Not marry brothers and sisters at the time of Moses, but cousins was permitted.
Not marry cousins began with Greeks and Romans.
After Moses. Increased risk of DNA ills with accumulated DNA errors in time.
And this from the beginning, where all was created very good and after the Fall, it fall in corruption, with corruption increasing in time.
-God bless you.
Hello.
-For T.Rex. Look at the roots of teeth. 9 inches of tooth outside, 2 inches of tooth inside. Not a strong attachment to the jaw. If they ate meat, they were destinied to lose all teeth, for they would be ripped out from the jaw. Prehistorical dental care should be needed, for replace all teeth.
They closed like a rake. Perfect to extract leaves from trees. Trees taken to mouth with those small arms
While moving, they moved like giant ducks. So, small animals would easy run away.
Some says (for teeth problem) they swallowed their prays whole. But their jaws were not as snakes.
Also for coprolite assumption and some bones of small dinosaurs found inside it. The base of this assumption is that coprolite is so big so it can only be T-Rex poop of course we know that being serious is another matter.
-Experiments on E.Coli. Those experiment showed spontaneous formation of E.Coli bacteria from simple elements? No.
And if an E.Coli would be created from a guided by scientists experiments, it will only shou that life can only be created from active work by an intelligent agent.
-Baramin cat was not more complex (i.e. it had no wings, feathers or tentacles, it was just a cat). It had more genetic potential. You can see how many dog races we have obtained from few original races. Its the same. The obtained races has not the genetic potential of the starting race. They have lost that potential. But complexity level is the same for all dogs, past and recent. They are all just dogs.
-Evidence for corruption? One of evidences is the advice to not marry close relatives.
Not marry brothers and sisters at the time of Moses, but cousins was permitted.
Not marry cousins began with Greeks and Romans.
After Moses. Increased risk of DNA ills with accumulated DNA errors in time.
And this from the beginning, where all was created very good and after the Fall, it fall in corruption, with corruption increasing in time.
-God bless you.
@skwim
Hello.
Maybe I’m alittle rude in English, but I’m sure I can understand you and you canunderstand me!
With “conceptsof evolution”… I believed in evolution for years, I had no problem with them.
A few yearsago I made researchs while asking myself if what I believed in was really true(or “a fact”
.So I becamea creationist.
God blessyou, and have a great day!
otokage007
Well-Known Member
Then start reconsidering: http://mic.sgmjournals.org/content/18/3/586.full.pdf
It is possible to obtain a lac+ strain from a lac- culture.
We are evolving towards extincion? So evolution is fact now?
Anyway, we are not really "evolving" because medicine, technology, and our articial environment have severely slowed natural selection. Are deleterous mutations accumulating in our DNA because natural selection is not killing the "ill" population? Maybe, but that's far from being near extinction because there's only two consequences of this: 1) medicine and genetic engeneering will cure those "illness" or 2) those illness are not curable and these people will die. So either we "cure" those genes, or those genes are eliminated from the population. I'm not worried at all.
Erickson GM and Van Kirk SD "Bite-Force Estimation for Tyrannosaurus rex from Tooth-Marked Bones". (Nature) stated that T rex was at least capable of exerting a bite of 4 tons of pressure on their prey. So what do u suggest their prey was? Redwood trunks? lmfao
On «Forelimb Osteology and Biomechanics of Tyrannosaurus rex», Carpenter and Kenneth (2001) stated that the bones of the forelimbs of Tyrannosaurus rex had very thick cortical bone, indicating that they were developed to withstand heavy loads. The biceps of an adult Tyrannosaurus rex was capable of lifting over 200 kg, that number would increase with other muscles to act as the brachialis muscle. They suggested this was an evolved system to mantain their preys paralized while they were killing them. I don't think u need this to paralyze leaves...
In «T. Rex brain study reveals a refined "nose"», from Calgary Herald, it is stated that the T rex had a great sense of smell, able to locate corpses at impressive great distances (or maybe flowers?
)Tyrannosaurus orbits are positioned so that the eyes look forward, giving them a binocular vision slightly better than modern hawks. This type of vision is almost nonexistant in herbivores. (Stevens, Kent A. (June 2006). «Binocular vision in theropod dinosaurs» Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology)
Some Hadrosaur Edmontosaurus and Triceratops fossiles have been found heavily injured by Trex bites. It has been found even a Trex teeth in the skull of prey. (Happ, John; and Carpenter, Kenneth (2008). «An analysis of predator-prey behavior in a head-to-head encounter between Tyrannosaurus rex and Triceratops»).
Trex teeth have serrated edges, which implies carnivorous diet, and lack an adequate teeth to herbivorism (as molars).
Tyrannosaurus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have not found a single scientific paper that concludes that Trex is herbivorous. And you? :/
-Experiments on E.Coli. Those experiment showed spontaneous formation of E.Coli bacteria from simple elements? No.
And if an E.Coli would be created from a guided by scientists experiments, it will only shou that life can only be created from active work by an intelligent agent.
-Baramin “cat” was not more “complex” (i.e. it had no wings, feathers or tentacles, it was “just a cat”
You are stating that in a gray wolf, (or whatever original dog u are talking about), we can find all the genetic code present in every single race of dog. But even worse, u are stating that in an ancient cat, we can find all the genetic code present in leopards, cheetah, lions, cats, lynx, etc! Which is simply absurd and only demonstrates your ASTONISHING ignorance on biology.
How can "accumulation" reduce the genetic code of a baramin cat and transform it into a tiger? :/
@otokage
Hello!
-With that jaw size and those muscles, it's obvious that T-Rex had great power in biting! But this had nothing to do with teeth structure and the “too-short-for-a-carnivorous-animal” roots of teeth. They could close their mouth in a strong way. But in pulling meat and bones away... 1 times, 2 times and all teeth should be lost.
-On forelimbs. It is stated that T-Rex biceps could lift 200 kg. With a 6 tons T-Rex weight, for an 80 kg man, that means less than 3 kg to lift. Not this much. 200 kg preys should run away faster than T-Rex catching them, for they didn't possess big size.
-There are mammalian herbivores with great sense of smell. They use it, as you say, to detect better leaves and vegetables. If it happened 1 time, it should happen 2 times.
-Binocular vision means overlapping of image of each eye. It is needed for precision and for judge distances.
Pandas and primates has binocular vision. They are herbivore, but they need binocular vision for precision while moving on tree branches, not for preys or food.
Bats, dolphins and some whales don't rely on binocular vision for preying.
Horses and zebras possess binocular vision for moving.
Giraffes possess binocular vision and they eat leaves. Their vision permits them to see their herd form great distances.
Height of T-Rex and giraffe are similar.
Binocular vision doesn't mean in an absolute way that the animal is carnivorous. Binocular vision covers a lot of function, as we can see.
-It's been discovered a T-Rex tooth in the skull of prey. A removed tooth, as told before, for T-Rex biting animals which will lose teeth.
-Iguana is a reptile. Iguana is herbivore. Iguana hasn't molars.
-Evolution is the more diffused belief, for origin explanation. But a teaching is not “true” for the percentage of people who think it's true, as you know.
-A gray wolf is a gray wolf. You can't obtain dogs from actual gray wolves, because they don't possess that information inside their DNA. They have lost it. But we know that from a couple of dogs we can obtain up to 200 different races. But from those races, we won't be able to obtain the original couple of dogs.
-I meant “cat” for “cat type” (maybe rough explaining). But all types of “cats” (better “felines” descended from one “baramin”. Interbreeding is an evidence of this.
-Actual cat and actual tigers were contained in DNA of original “felix baramin”. As Chihuahua and St. Bernard dog. Really different, but dogs.
God bless you!!
Hello!
-With that jaw size and those muscles, it's obvious that T-Rex had great power in biting! But this had nothing to do with teeth structure and the “too-short-for-a-carnivorous-animal” roots of teeth. They could close their mouth in a strong way. But in pulling meat and bones away... 1 times, 2 times and all teeth should be lost.
-On forelimbs. It is stated that T-Rex biceps could lift 200 kg. With a 6 tons T-Rex weight, for an 80 kg man, that means less than 3 kg to lift. Not this much. 200 kg preys should run away faster than T-Rex catching them, for they didn't possess big size.
-There are mammalian herbivores with great sense of smell. They use it, as you say, to detect better leaves and vegetables. If it happened 1 time, it should happen 2 times.
-Binocular vision means overlapping of image of each eye. It is needed for precision and for judge distances.
Pandas and primates has binocular vision. They are herbivore, but they need binocular vision for precision while moving on tree branches, not for preys or food.
Bats, dolphins and some whales don't rely on binocular vision for preying.
Horses and zebras possess binocular vision for moving.
Giraffes possess binocular vision and they eat leaves. Their vision permits them to see their herd form great distances.
Height of T-Rex and giraffe are similar.
Binocular vision doesn't mean in an absolute way that the animal is carnivorous. Binocular vision covers a lot of function, as we can see.
-It's been discovered a T-Rex tooth in the skull of prey. A removed tooth, as told before, for T-Rex biting animals which will lose teeth.
-Iguana is a reptile. Iguana is herbivore. Iguana hasn't molars.
-Evolution is the more diffused belief, for origin explanation. But a teaching is not “true” for the percentage of people who think it's true, as you know.
-A gray wolf is a gray wolf. You can't obtain dogs from actual gray wolves, because they don't possess that information inside their DNA. They have lost it. But we know that from a couple of dogs we can obtain up to 200 different races. But from those races, we won't be able to obtain the original couple of dogs.
-I meant “cat” for “cat type” (maybe rough explaining). But all types of “cats” (better “felines”
descended from one “baramin”. Interbreeding is an evidence of this.-Actual cat and actual tigers were contained in DNA of original “felix baramin”. As Chihuahua and St. Bernard dog. Really different, but dogs.
God bless you!!
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
How do you explain the existence of Neanderthal Man alongside Homo Sapiens? Apparently, according to the scientific record, there was no "first man" named "Adam," for if there were, there would be no such thing as Neanderthal (especially at the same time as Homo Sapiens), which, of course, we know there was.
Hello!
If we believe that St.Bernard and Chihuahua are both dogs... we can believe Neanderthal and Sapiens were both men.
St.Bernard and Chihuahua discended from the same original and different from them dogs.
But dogs.
Neanderthal and Sapiens descended from the same original and different from them men.
But men.
Also, there were not too many differences among neanderthal and Sapiens, as we believe.
Sapiens and Neanderthal were found burie together in tombs. Sign of same funeral cerimonies, same intelligence and same culture for both.
Differences in apperaring, we can see them.
But also differences among St.Bernard and Chihuahua.
It's reasonable say that Adam existed and Genesis account is true.
Or this works for dogs but not for men? It should be only a matter of faith, to say this. Not a matter of reason.
God bless you!
otokage007
Well-Known Member
Evidence of all this?
I don’t know any herbivorous primate. Could you name a couple of them?
Pandas are omnivore despite his famous habit of eating bamboo.
The do not use any kind of vision, they use echolocation.
Neither horses, zebras, giraffes, or any herbivore that I know, have binocular vision. Unlike the Trex, which has binocular stereoscopic vision like most (if not all) carnivores.
Herbivores need to have separated eyes to direct them sideways, so they can have a wider field of view than carnivores, that allows them to be alert to attacks. Carnivores, on the contrary, need binocular vision, so the images of each eye overlap giving a 3D sensation that allows them to judge distances and hunt successfully.
So? :/
Binocular vision is present in most carnivores, and not in any herbivore that I know.
Iguanas are omnivorous.
Yes I know. This happens with genesis.
-Gray wolves and dogs can interbreed. And they are the same species btw: Canis lupus :/
-You can obtain up to 200 different races from a couple of dogs? How would u do this?
Lions and cats can interbreed? Evidence please?-I meant “cat” for “cat type” (maybe rough explaining). But all types of “cats” (better “felines”
Cat and tiger are different species, chihuahua and St.Bernard, are not.
Btw any fossiles of a baramin animal?
Awww God bless u too!
Last edited:
Gorillas have a diet that consists almost exclusively of leaves, shoots, roots, fruit and berries. They do also eat some insects, but they can hardly be considered hunters or predictors.
@otokage
Hello!
-You said that, for jaw and biceps strenght…
-As told, gorillas, for example. Panda are considered by most “carnivorous” cause they sometimes eat a small animal…
-Echolocation, we know. They don’t use binocular vision for preying.
-Horses’ overlapping view is binocular for definition. Not a wide angle.
-It’s possible that meaning of binocular vision for T-rex is the same for giraffes.
-Elephants has also binocular vision, and not for preying. There is no lacking of examples.
-Iguanas are mainly herbivore, and with sharp teeth.
-So, Gray wolves and dogs descended from the same “baramin”. I meant another concept. We cannot “go back” with DNA, with breeding, to the original couple.
-Can’t find the article now, I went by memory. But the number of dog races we can see is sufficient, as evidence.
-I wrote “cat”, maybe it’s better “feline”. I.e. lions and tigers. Lions and tigers are called “different species”, and now? Just a matter of definitions!
God bless you!
Hello!
-You said that, for jaw and biceps strenght…
-As told, gorillas, for example. Panda are considered by most “carnivorous” cause they sometimes eat a small animal…
-Echolocation, we know. They don’t use binocular vision for preying.
-Horses’ overlapping view is binocular for definition. Not a wide angle.
-It’s possible that meaning of binocular vision for T-rex is the same for giraffes.
-Elephants has also binocular vision, and not for preying. There is no lacking of examples.
-Iguanas are mainly herbivore, and with sharp teeth.
-So, Gray wolves and dogs descended from the same “baramin”. I meant another concept. We cannot “go back” with DNA, with breeding, to the original couple.
-Can’t find the article now, I went by memory. But the number of dog races we can see is sufficient, as evidence.
-I wrote “cat”, maybe it’s better “feline”. I.e. lions and tigers. Lions and tigers are called “different species”, and now? Just a matter of definitions!
God bless you!
otokage007
Well-Known Member
-Gorillas don't have sharp teeth so I don't see the similarity with Trex.
-Iguanas and pandas both eat animals smaller than them, as Trex would eat a human.
-As far as I know, all animals that use echolocation are predators, and animals with binocular stereoscopic vision are predators too. So I don't see why echolocation or stereoscopic vision would mean Trex was herbivore.
Horses and giraffes have a very reduced field of binocular vision due to the extreme separation of their eyes, like most herbivores, they lack of proper stereoscopic vision, this means the field of vision of both eyes don't overlap on an enough wide area. Horses and giraffes can't judge distances properly, and can not see objects that are near their faces, which makes sense, due to the static and harmless nature of their prey: vegetables
I hope this picture clarifies it a little more:
As u can see, the red (blind) area, extends even in fron of their face. I don't think there's any carnivore with such a clear blind spot in its face. In fact, I don't think u will find any animal with the stereoscopic vision of Trex that is herbivore. On the article I quoted you, Trex vision is compared to that of hawk (and even said to be "slightly better"), as you may know, the hawk is said to be the animal with better vision in the whole planet. And yes, he is strictly carnivorous, as any animal with a similar vision power.
Vision of elephants is similar to those of horses. With a poor stereoscopic vision.
Pure breeds are just animals with almost all their genes in homocigose. You are suggesting than from two heterocigotes it is impossible to obtain a homocigote, which is untrue. It's just that obtaining homocigosis to all genes, is highly unlikely to happen. This is not a proof in favour of baramin animals.
I will remain skeptic untill u find an article.
Lions and tigers can not produce fertile offspring, therefore, they are not the same specie.
GB you!
@otokage
Hello.
-Iguanas are mainly herbivore. They rely on nutritous plants, not poor plants. So, need of protein should be satisfied with a few meat.
-Gorilla has molars for it need molars. The point was on binocular vision, for a use that was not for preying, and so it was for the gorilla.
-For giraffes and horses, the need was to look better to the herd, if it was far. Little binocular vision, but present.
-Eagles possessed those vision for catching prey from distance, with great speed and precision. T-rex is not, obviously, an eagle. Purpose was entirely different. The prey was aware of a theoretical fast T-rex running. So, with that precision for preying, T-rex was too big for being so fast and precise, it was not a 6meters-6tons hawk. It means, for a carnivorous being, eyes not coordinated with body, so it will result in an unuseful good sight. Maybe eyes were useful for preyng. Body was not, for the type of hunting the hawk does.
-No, for breed, it means loss of genetic variability during time. Just this.
-Hundreds of dog (always dog) races today are not sufficient?
-Modern definition of “specie” is different from Bible. Lions and tigers can interbreed. So they are from the same “baramin”.
God bless you.
Hello.
-Iguanas are mainly herbivore. They rely on nutritous plants, not poor plants. So, need of protein should be satisfied with a few meat.
-Gorilla has molars for it need molars. The point was on binocular vision, for a use that was not for preying, and so it was for the gorilla.
-For giraffes and horses, the need was to look better to the herd, if it was far. Little binocular vision, but present.
-Eagles possessed those vision for catching prey from distance, with great speed and precision. T-rex is not, obviously, an eagle. Purpose was entirely different. The prey was aware of a theoretical fast T-rex running. So, with that precision for preying, T-rex was too big for being so fast and precise, it was not a 6meters-6tons hawk. It means, for a carnivorous being, eyes not coordinated with body, so it will result in an unuseful good sight. Maybe eyes were useful for preyng. Body was not, for the type of hunting the hawk does.
-No, for breed, it means loss of genetic variability during time. Just this.
-Hundreds of dog (always dog) races today are not sufficient?
-Modern definition of “specie” is different from Bible. Lions and tigers can interbreed. So they are from the same “baramin”.
God bless you.
otokage007
Well-Known Member
All those statements still fail to demonstrate the herbivorous nature of Trex. Trex had a very accurate stereoscopic binocular vision only present in carnivores.
Breeding doesn't mean loss of genetic variability, but gain.
It depends. How can hundreds of dogs races disprove evolution?
Cats and lions can not interbreed. Therefore the baramin cat didn't exist.
GB you!
I AM THAT I AM
I have no title.
FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE EVOLUTION IS NOT A RELIGION:
allow me to define the term "religion"
"RELIGION:the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs"
now by this definition, Creationism is CLEARLY a religion. Ill admit i dont know where God came from, I rely upon faith and BELIEF.
Now, according to the Big Bang Theory (and i am paraphrasing) there was a single piece pf dust smaller than a period at the end of this sentence, surrounded by ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. the dust began to heat up, then began to swirl, and then combusted, shooting outwards creating everything simultaneously.
I have merely one question.
Where did the dust come from that did all of this?
oh you dont know where the dust came from? Or even the particles that made the dust? you dont know where any of it came from? interesting.... so you have to BELIEVE the dust was there? Of course you do.
Because it is untestable, and there isnt even a good theory about where the dust came from. If you have to BELIEVE it was there, it is NOT science. It IS a religion.
"No amout of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -ALBERT EINSTEIN
allow me to define the term "religion"
"RELIGION:the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs"
now by this definition, Creationism is CLEARLY a religion. Ill admit i dont know where God came from, I rely upon faith and BELIEF.
Now, according to the Big Bang Theory (and i am paraphrasing) there was a single piece pf dust smaller than a period at the end of this sentence, surrounded by ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. the dust began to heat up, then began to swirl, and then combusted, shooting outwards creating everything simultaneously.
I have merely one question.
Where did the dust come from that did all of this?
oh you dont know where the dust came from? Or even the particles that made the dust? you dont know where any of it came from? interesting.... so you have to BELIEVE the dust was there? Of course you do.
Because it is untestable, and there isnt even a good theory about where the dust came from. If you have to BELIEVE it was there, it is NOT science. It IS a religion.
"No amout of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." -ALBERT EINSTEIN
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
What does evolution have to do with Big Bang? And that's a misunderstanding of the Big Bang... I would say that your definition of religion is flawed, because then all ideologies and philosophical stances are religions too.
otokage007
Well-Known Member
The Big Bang is a model, which means it is demonstrated that CAN happen, but scientists can not confirm categorically that that's actually what happened. Big Bang theory states that universe originated through this model.
About the dust particle. It could have always been there, it could come from a pre-universe that contracted itself ending in that dust particle, or it even could be generated "out of nothing" as I think quantum physics state.
And about evolution. It is not a belief. Evolution is a fact as clear as gravity, and there's no evidence against it. There will never be :/
camanintx
Well-Known Member
According to this definition, my religion is baseball.
You have a poor understanding of what the Big Bang Theory actually says.
"Proof is only for mathematics and alcohol." -UNKNOWN
gnostic
The Lost One
i am that i am said:
I believe in gravity, then does that mean my religion is GRAVITY?
I believe in electromagnetism, optics, geometry, etc. Does that mean my religion are ELECTROMAGNETISM, OPTICS, GEOMETRY, etc?
This is whole EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION is nothing more than a creationist CLAP-TRAP!
If evolution is a religion, then all other science that we know and accept as true and factual, should also be considered as religion, according to your insane and flawed logic.
The old genetic entropy canard from creationists. Another sciency-sounding word invented by creationists with the only aim to lie to people.
Please note, firstly, that this was published in a computer programming article, not in any ways related to biology. This means that: the program works. It doesn't mean anything about biology.
This program has been run. You can read all about it at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=138574. The program didn't work in real life. The people who ran the program explain exactly what they did.
It was run for mice and mosquitos, and the outcome was that mice and mosquitos would go extinct in a few generations. As far as I can remember it was 300 generations for mice.
At the end of the output file, the program presented the error, "Favorable mutation count exceeds limit".
It seems that the program is unable to process favorable mutations over 1788 (the number of beneficial mutations in the final generation).
In the end, the population had a fitness of 0.2297 (and rising), with 3329 deleterious mutations and 1788 beneficial mutations.
So, the program allows for over 3,000 deleterious mutations but limits the beneficial mutations to almost half that.
It would seem that the program is set up for a predetermined outcome. Typical creationists way of doing things.
Another way of lying. That's all creationists have. Nothing else.
No it doesn't use real world parameters. At all.
Please note, firstly, that this was published in a computer programming article, not in any ways related to biology. This means that: the program works. It doesn't mean anything about biology.
This program has been run. You can read all about it at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=138574. The program didn't work in real life. The people who ran the program explain exactly what they did.
It was run for mice and mosquitos, and the outcome was that mice and mosquitos would go extinct in a few generations. As far as I can remember it was 300 generations for mice.
At the end of the output file, the program presented the error, "Favorable mutation count exceeds limit".
It seems that the program is unable to process favorable mutations over 1788 (the number of beneficial mutations in the final generation).
In the end, the population had a fitness of 0.2297 (and rising), with 3329 deleterious mutations and 1788 beneficial mutations.
So, the program allows for over 3,000 deleterious mutations but limits the beneficial mutations to almost half that.
It would seem that the program is set up for a predetermined outcome. Typical creationists way of doing things.
Another way of lying. That's all creationists have. Nothing else.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
No, you are not paraphrasing, you are fantasising. Your account bears as much resemblance to the Big Bang Theory as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland does to a physics textbook. Next time you want to treat us to your critique of a theory, do make an effort to understand at least its bare essentials first.
Something else that you might try to understand is that the Big Bang Theory has nothing whatever to do with evolution. It remains a source of astonishment how often this has to be explained to creationists.