Evidence God Is

[blü 2]

With all the faith required to believe in something that has not been shown to be possible, something not supported by fact based evidence, but only what is assumed to be evidence, of course you have a belief system.
Why do you keep denying what you clearly know to be true.

Well, evolution is an observed fact, as I showed you (though you didn't like the example) and the theory of evolution explaining it is derived by scientific method, that is, it's based on reasoning transparently and honestly from examinable evidence and repeatable experiment and expressed as falsifiable but unfalsified statements, including statements subject to clearly stated conditions. This ensures that correspondence with reality remains the test of what is true.

And what you offer has none of that.

What test do you use to determine whether a statement is true or not?

Both you and blü 2 creating strawman.

Because you cannot deny that evidence supports an intelligent designer, you ignore that evidence

No evidence supports an intelligent designer.

If so far you've made an unambiguous statement as to the identity of your 'intelligent designer' then alas I missed it, so I ask you please to repeat it. If you haven't made such a statement, please do so now. Otherwise neither you nor anyone else know what you're actually talking about.
[

Chemicals popped out of nowhere

The origin of the elements is well explained. The Big Bang produced hydrogen, helium and some lithium, and the heavier elements were generated in the first generation of stars, and scattered into the universe by novae.

started moving on their own

By natural processes started forming more complex molecules such as we now associate with biochemistry.

hijacked a rock and searched out an ideal location to land

As I said, science does not yet have a clear description of a possible pathway from biochemical precursors to protolife. But you don't think the idea is silly, since you declined to say you'd admit you were wrong if such a description be achieved ─ you apparently want to be able to ignore evidence so inconvenient to your argument, should it be found.

Sounds like a story right out of a fairytale book.

Once upon a time there was a powerful magician. He was about to invent the earth but someone pointed out he'd forgotten to create the EM spectrum, so with some magic words he brought it into being. Then he fixed the earth immovably in space, and put some plants on it. Afterwards he invented the sun, moon and stars, and fixed them to a solid dome over the earth, and they went round and round it. Then he magicked fish into existence *poof!*. And birds *poof!*. And then he started on land animals *poof!**poof!**poof!**poof!**poof!*. Then his ego got the better of him and he made an animal in his own image *poof!* known as 'Man' in Hebrew, 'Adam' in English. That's how we know the magician has male genitals, though his skin color is a matter of debate. Then he made a female person to be the mate of Man, but instead of another *poof!* he took a rib from the man, went *mumble mumble mumble* and bingo! the first human female!

Now that's what I call a fairy tale.

Which reminds me ─ you haven't got back to me on how to make a sloth from nothing. (Whereas I've shown you where the nylon bug came from.)

I look forward to your detailed report.

 

[nPeace]

Well, evolution is an observed fact, as I showed you (though you didn't like the example) and the theory of evolution explaining it is derived by scientific method, that is, it's based on reasoning transparently and honestly from examinable evidence and repeatable experiment and expressed as falsifiable but unfalsified statements, including statements subject to clearly stated conditions. This ensures that correspondence with reality remains the test of what is true.

And what you offer has none of that.

Am I losing you, or are you losing me?
Please try to understand what I am saying.
No one has observed evolution on a large scale.
Evolution on a small scale, yes, but I am not debating that.
What you gave me was small scale evolution - which is not evolution above the species level.
Perhaps the confusion has to do with how evolutionists use words.

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened.
[GALLERY=media, 8725]Macroequation by nPeace posted Nov 16, 2018 at 6:22 PM[/GALLERY]

Can you explain how the patterns you see relay to you the facts of what happened.

What test do you use to determine whether a statement is true or not?
No evidence supports an intelligent designer.

I already told you. I used experimentation, observation, and reasoning, and the facts support the evidence for intelligent design.

If so far you've made an unambiguous statement as to the identity of your 'intelligent designer' then alas I missed it, so I ask you please to repeat it. If you haven't made such a statement, please do so now. Otherwise neither you nor anyone else know what you're actually talking about.

None of us can prove what we suggest.

The origin of the elements is well explained. The Big Bang produced hydrogen, helium and some lithium, and the heavier elements were generated in the first generation of stars, and scattered into the universe by novae.
By natural processes started forming more complex molecules such as we now associate with biochemistry.
As I said, science does not yet have a clear description of a possible pathway from biochemical precursors to protolife. But you don't think the idea is silly, since you declined to say you'd admit you were wrong if such a description be achieved ─ you apparently want to be able to ignore evidence so inconvenient to your argument, should it be found.

As I mentioned over and over again, these speculations and assumptions are made without any direct evidence.
Are you going to tell me there are not speculations? Please show me how they are not.

Once upon a time there was a powerful magician. He was about to invent the earth but someone pointed out he'd forgotten to create the EM spectrum, so with some magic words he brought it into being. Then he fixed the earth immovably in space, and put some plants on it. Afterwards he invented the sun, moon and stars, and fixed them to a solid dome over the earth, and they went round and round it. Then he magicked fish into existence *poof!*. And birds *poof!*. And then he started on land animals *poof!**poof!**poof!**poof!**poof!*. Then his ego got the better of him and he made an animal in his own image *poof!* known as 'Man' in Hebrew, 'Adam' in English. That's how we know the magician has male genitals, though his skin color is a matter of debate. Then he made a female person to be the mate of Man, but instead of another *poof!* he took a rib from the man, went *mumble mumble mumble* and bingo! the first human female!

Now that's what I call a fairy tale.

Ha Ha Ha.
Thanks for the silly story you obviously made up in your head.
That's some imagination you have there.

Which reminds me ─ you haven't got back to me on how to make a sloth from nothing. (Whereas I've shown you where the nylon bug came from.)

I look forward to your detailed report.

I've been reminding you, don't tell me your memory's failing you, but don't worry, it happens to all of us, as we age. Genetics.

Your nylon bug - repeat for the umpteenth time - is not large scale evolution. So that's what I am waiting for. The process that makes a whole new organism above the species level.

 

[blü 2]

No one has observed evolution on a large scale.

Did you look at the article on transitional fossils I linked?

Evolution on a small scale, yes, but I am not debating that.

So you agree that evolution occurs but you argue that it can't in principle continue so that a new genus results, correct?

On the basis of what evidence do you argue that? Because it hasn't been observed? People with greater expertise than you or I disagree with you. And if I follow your argument about the necessity for observation, I take it you deny you had great great grandparents, since you've never seen them?

I already told you. I used experimentation, observation, and reasoning, and the facts support the evidence for intelligent design.

With all due respect, you did nothing of the kind. You simply offered an argument from your pocket, so vague as to be undescribed, unsupported by evidence, unsupported even by testable hypothesis, essentially relying on magic. That's why you can't tell me how the first sloth (grasshopper / octopus / toucan / cayman / pangolin / frog / mudskipper, anything) came into the picture.

None of us can prove what we suggest.

But the argument against magic is remarkably robust, and you're the only one relying on magic.

Ha Ha Ha.
Thanks for the silly story you obviously made up in your head.

I invented the character who has to remind the magician to invent the EM spectrum. The rest is all straight out of the bible ─ >here's a quick refresher on their cosmology in their own words<, check it for yourself.

Your nylon bug - repeat for the umpteenth time - is not large scale evolution. So that's what I am waiting for. The process that makes a whole new organism above the species level.

I show you the evolution of a species never seen before, which was fully observed and described in the article. You show me nothing ─ not even a statement about what the 'designer' is, let alone why it bothers. Not even how the sloth can come about in the absence of evolution. Not even how magic, the central component in your proposal, works.

But it's not too late. Just set it out clearly in your next post.

 

[nPeace]

Hi @blü 2, hope you had a good night's rest, and your day is going well.
I need you to clarify two things for me, as I want to make certain my next post is absolutely clear for you, okay?
You said...

With all due respect, you did nothing of the kind. You simply offered an argument from your pocket, so vague as to be undescribed, unsupported by evidence, unsupported even by testable hypothesis, essentially relying on magic. That's why you can't tell me how the first sloth (grasshopper / octopus / toucan / cayman / pangolin / frog / mudskipper, anything) came into the picture.

What is the argument from my pocket that I presented?
Could you answer another question also, please.
Hebrews 3:4 says, Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.
If I say to you, I believe what this verse says, and I also believe that we have a variety of species (I hope you understand what I mean by species now) of the same kind, by means of reproduction, and adaptation, what process do you think I believe is responsible for the arrival of grasshopper / octopus / toucan / cayman / pangolin / frog / man...?
Thanks

 

[blü 2]

What is the argument from my pocket that I presented?

That there is a designer AND
that the designer has no known identity description purpose or qualities other than the implied ability to do magic AND
therefore evolution only happens on a small scale and the theory of evolution is false.

Is there anything there you wish to amend or elucidate? If so, please do so.

Hebrews 3:4 says, Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

If I say to you, I believe what this verse says, and I also believe that we have a variety of species (I hope you understand what I mean by species now) of the same kind, by means of reproduction, and adaptation, what process do you think I believe is responsible for the arrival of grasshopper / octopus / toucan / cayman / pangolin / frog / man...?

Then why not do what the great majority of Christian believers do, and accept the theory of evolution as a reasoned evidence-based work-in-progress explanation of God's methods?

 

[nPeace]

That there is a designer AND
that the designer has no known identity description purpose or qualities other than the implied ability to do magic AND
therefore evolution only happens on a small scale and the theory of evolution is false.

Is there anything there you wish to amend or elucidate? If so, please do so.

Then why not do what the great majority of Christian believers do, and accept the theory of evolution as a reasoned evidence-based work-in-progress explanation of God's methods?

Thanks. I'll get back to you tomorrow evening. Have a good night.

 

[Cacotopia]

That would depend on what answers one needs, would it not?

Definitely true, but what I am gathering is this guy uses only this book for practically everything which to me is very impractical since much of the book is no longer pertinent given the standards of today. And even the predicament the human race finds itself in concerning its role in nature and the preposterous idea that we are lords over the earth. We are part of it we don't own it, and this ideology will be the death of all of us in due time.

 

[Cacotopia]

Wait a darn minute here.

You don't need to see god or any evidence that is demonstrable to believe but now you are demanding that we should be able to live through the millions of years it takes to "observe" real time evolution?

Seeing is believing right?

But you are fine to be blind with your god.

Cool.

 

[joelr]

Hi @blü 2, hope you had a good night's rest, and your day is going well.
I need you to clarify two things for me, as I want to make certain my next post is absolutely clear for you, okay?
You said...

What is the argument from my pocket that I presented?
Could you answer another question also, please.
Hebrews 3:4 says, Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.
If I say to you, I believe what this verse says, and I also believe that we have a variety of species (I hope you understand what I mean by species now) of the same kind, by means of reproduction, and adaptation, what process do you think I believe is responsible for the arrival of grasshopper / octopus / toucan / cayman / pangolin / frog / man...?
Thanks

The fossil record starting from extinct tree apes to hairy apes who walked a small amount, going through many species increasing brain size with the introduction of scavenging and insect eating, eventually we see body hair loss with the introduction of a new ventalation system (sweating), then species who made tools and writings and buried their dead and eventually right up to H. Heilelbergensis who wore clothes, made tools and may have spoken some language. Maybe even had a spirituality.
The ape right before the emergence of H. Sapien ape. (us)
But the process of just that change takes 1000s of years of small changes until we see actual humans around 100,000 years ago.
The full process from tree ape is many millions of years.

 

[nPeace]

Did you look at the article on transitional fossils I linked?

I looked at it before you linked it. Did I not indicate that? Did I not ask you to show that they are not assumptions? Did you?

So you agree that evolution occurs but you argue that it can't in principle continue so that a new genus results, correct?

On the basis of what evidence do you argue that? Because it hasn't been observed? People with greater expertise than you or I disagree with you. And if I follow your argument about the necessity for observation, I take it you deny you had great great grandparents, since you've never seen them?

I already said it. Were you following the conversation, or are you at an age where short term memory loss is affecting you? It happens to all of us... eventually.
I have never seen reproduction stop, and through that genetic change, and adaptation occurs. I have not seen bacteria changes and adaptation make them anything other than bacteria, have you? Where?
Are we bacteria with added parts? Show me please, how that happens.
On the basis of what evidence do you argue otherwise?

People with greater expertise than you or I agree with me. What does that have to do with anything? So because George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, etc., etc., says "pigs fly." then it must be true. No, they did not say that, and no, expert opinions are not always true.

No I don't deny having great grandparents.
They have always been observed to be human.
Even to this day we are still observing it.
Do you suggest we twist science to be what it's not - to accept any and everything?
Using that logic, then you should ask that the supernatural be included.
No. That's not very clever, is it is blu 2?

With all due respect, you did nothing of the kind. You simply offered an argument from your pocket,

That there is a designer AND
that the designer has no known identity description purpose or qualities other than the implied ability to do magic AND
therefore evolution only happens on a small scale and the theory of evolution is false.

Is there anything there you wish to amend or elucidate? If so, please do so.

so vague as to be undescribed, unsupported by evidence, unsupported even by testable hypothesis, essentially relying on magic. That's why you can't tell me how the first sloth (grasshopper / octopus / toucan / cayman / pangolin / frog / mudskipper, anything) came into the picture.

So, seeing that I posted this two or three times before, and you for some strange reason didn't read it, I'll do it again... but only this once, because it's not my fault you are either not reading my posts, or just skipping through them, and ignoring some things... while just repeating the word magic.
If you want me to repeat the details again, I'm sorry, that's unnecessary finger tapping.

Fact: We know that design requires a designer. See the OP, if you haven't already done so.
Does life require a designer? Yes, because life is a product of design - living machines. I asked for this to be disproved before.
Therefore, using deductive reasoning - design requires a designer; life is a product of design; life requires a designer. How many times did I present this argument?
Please prove otherwise, if you disagree.

Not knowing the designer, does not annul the design, nor the fact that life was designed.
We discover these designs and we study them with what? The brain that was designed. Yes. Your brain came after, not before.
In fact, we owe our very existence to that designer.

Why does man not want to give credit to the designer, but prefers to credit the creation?
Answer: . . .although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles. Romans 1:21-23; Please compare Psalms 14:1

It seems this was understood.

Hi @blü 2Hebrews 3:4 says, Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.
If I say to you, I believe what this verse says, and I also believe that we have a variety of species (I hope you understand what I mean by species now) of the same kind, by means of reproduction, and adaptation, what process do you think I believe is responsible for the arrival of grasshopper / octopus / toucan / cayman / pangolin / frog / man...?

Good.

Then why not do what the great majority of Christian believers do, and accept the theory of evolution as a reasoned evidence-based work-in-progress explanation of God's methods?

Thank you.
Can you see why?
[GALLERY=media, 8730]Life by nPeace posted Nov 18, 2018 at 1:26 PM[/GALLERY]

But the argument against magic is remarkably robust, and you're the only one relying on magic.

Your claim about magic seems like a fun experience to you - like a game of Solitaire, so can I give you an exercise to do instead?

Helium - late 19th century: modern Latin, from Greek hēlios ‘sun,’ because its existence was inferred from an emission line in the sun's spectrum.

Helium is named for the Greek Titan of the Sun, Helios. It was first detected as an unknown yellow spectral line signature in sunlight during a solar eclipse in 1868 by Georges Rayet, Captain C. T. Haig, Norman R. Pogson, and Lieutenant John Herschel, and was subsequently confirmed by French astronomer Jules Janssen. Janssen is often jointly credited with detecting the element along with Norman Lockyer. Janssen recorded the helium spectral line during the solar eclipse of 1868 while Lockyer observed it from Britain. Lockyer was the first to propose that the line was due to a new element, which he named.

History
Scientific discoveries
The first evidence of helium was observed on August 18, 1868, as a bright yellow line with a wavelength of 587.49 nanometers in the spectrum of the chromosphere of the Sun. The line was detected by French astronomer Jules Janssen during a total solar eclipse in Guntur, India. This line was initially assumed to be sodium. On October 20 of the same year, English astronomer Norman Lockyer observed a yellow line in the solar spectrum, which he named the D3 because it was near the known D1 and D2 Fraunhofer line lines of sodium. He concluded that it was caused by an element in the Sun unknown on Earth. Lockyer and English chemist Edward Frankland named the element with the Greek word for the Sun, ἥλιος (helios).

Occurrence and production
Natural abundance
Although it is rare on Earth, helium is the second most abundant element in the known Universe (after hydrogen), constituting 23% of its baryonic mass. The vast majority of helium was formed by Big Bang nucleosynthesis one to three minutes after the Big Bang.

How about you prove to me that these assumptions have no element of magic. Can you do that?
When you have a theory, and you make a whole set of assumptions, and say, "This is how this occurred, and this is how that happened." Or you return later and say, "No. On the contrary, we thought it happened this way or that way, but in fact, This is how this occurred, and this is how that happened." What do you call that... if not magic? Something certainly is doing an appearing and disappearing act - the assumptions.

Science is a tool. I think people try to exploit it for their fight against God. It proves nothing, so I would suggest you accept that you have no advantage over anyone.
Even if your fight is not with God, but against the Bible, I still say you have a slippery uphill battle, for which you require a whole series of miracles, and science won't help you.

That faith doesn't seem very impressive. It's not the faith that the creator is pleased with either.
Hebrews 11:6 Moreover, without faith it is impossible to please God well, for whoever approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him.

I invented the character who has to remind the magician to invent the EM spectrum. The rest is all straight out of the bible ─ >here's a quick refresher on their cosmology in their own words<, check it for yourself.

I like that you actually gather weoponry to fight with.
For most of history, visible light was the only known part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The ancient Greeks recognized that light traveled in straight lines and studied some of its properties, including reflection and refraction. The study of light continued, and during the 16th and 17th centuries conflicting theories regarded light as either a wave or a particle.

The first discovery of electromagnetic radiation other than visible light came in 1800, when William Herschel discovered infrared radiation.
When? 1800?

Sorry, but do you think God is waiting for puny men with newly invented tech to come along in a few meager years, to tell him about light waves.
God must be laughing so hard. I could just see him and his heavenly host now.

Well maybe that's not exactly the correct picture, but he does laugh at arrogance.
Psalm 2:2-4
2 The kings of the earth take their stand And high officials gather together as one Against Jehovah and against his anointed one. 3 They say: “Let us tear off their shackles And throw off their ropes!” 4 The One enthroned in the heavens will laugh; Jehovah will scoff at them.

God is not limited by our imagination.
What does man really know?
Enjoy

Please pay attention to 32:00 - 49:00 or - 50:30

Why not think of the fact that on matters of science, the Bible is well ahead, and perhaps most ancient civilizations too.

Spoiler

 

[nPeace]

I show you the evolution of a species never seen before, which was fully observed and described in the article. You show me nothing ─ not even a statement about what the 'designer' is, let alone why it bothers. Not even how the sloth can come about in the absence of evolution. Not even how magic, the central component in your proposal, works.

But it's not too late. Just set it out clearly in your next post.

Again, you have apparently missed all I showed you. You showed me nothing new, only what you thought supported your argument - which it turned out didn't.
Bacteria evolution has been going on for centuries, and they haven't grown legs or arms, or hair, or genitals.
Please.... I am not writing for my health, so take time to read please.


Helicobacter pylori
Epidemiology
At least half the world's population is infected by the bacterium, making it the most widespread infection in the world.

History

Helicobacter pylori migrated out of Africa along with its human host circa 60,000 years ago. Recent research states that genetic diversity in H. pylori, like that of its host, decreases with geographic distance from East Africa. Using the genetic diversity data, researchers have created simulations that indicate the bacteria seem to have spread from East Africa around 58,000 years ago. Their results indicate modern humans were already infected by H. pylori before their migrations out of Africa, and it has remained associated with human hosts since that time.

H. pylori was first discovered in the stomachs of patients with gastritis and ulcers in 1982 by Drs. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren of Perth, Western Australia. At the time, the conventional thinking was that no bacterium could live in the acid environment of the human stomach. In recognition of their discovery, Marshall and Warren were awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Before the research of Marshall and Warren, German scientists found spiral-shaped bacteria in the lining of the human stomach in 1875, but they were unable to culture them, and the results were eventually forgotten. The Italian researcher Giulio Bizzozero described similarly shaped bacteria living in the acidic environment of the stomach of dogs in 1893.


Helicobacter pylori: A Beneficial Gastric Pathogen?
Apart from tremendous studies performed during the last years, there are still many debates regarding the unclear rationale for existence of such bacteria in human stomach. Basically, due to the beneficiary effects of H. pylori colonization (regression in child asthma and other allergic disorders), it has been concluded that H. pylori is a common flora or at least harmless bacterium, Conversely, because of the causative role of H. pylori in certain digestive diseases such as duodenal ulcer and gastric cancer, other reports are quite contradictory. A large number of discussions led to a consensus regarding presence of H. pylori in the human stomach. Our knowledge about biology of H. pylori suggests that the bacterium is highly adapted to stay in gastric mucosa for long time. Indeed, living in lower surface of gastric mucosa, with no bacterial competition, provided a novel place to survive. Moreover, H. pylori is able to multiply freely due to the protective effects by mucosal layer. Thus, H. pylori had an opportunity to thrive in stomach over the course of tens of thousands of years of co-evolution with humans. Additionally, the high frequency of mutation in the genome also led to higher chances of survival, and natural selection helped them to remain and cause chronic infection. Determining whether H. pylori is beneficial or detrimental in human stomach has been a challenging area of research in gastroenterology. In this article, we aim to elucidate various aspects of this persistent colonization of this beneficial infection.

H. pylori: Carried by human over the history
It seems that H. pylori is an old recognized bacterium, which is not clinically comparable with new discovered infectious agents such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). In other words, HIV was introduced to human hosts <50 years ago. Given a long period of H. pylori colonization in the human stomach, mutual benefits obliged both partners to adapt themselves in order to establish stable symbiosis. It has been firmly established that H. pylori first subverts innate immunity and then modulates the adaptive immune system (blocking the activation of both B and T cells). As a result, cagA and vacA, the main bacterial products, will inhibit B cell and T cell proliferation, respectively. Accordingly, immune response in the stomach is silenced against digested microbes. Undeniably, the stomach, with its harsh acidic condition, is a container for many digested microbes every day. Possibly, regulation and modulation of immune response arose after microbial exposure to H. pylori colonizing the stomach. Our current understanding of the strategies used by this pathogen to make a lifelong colonization, disclosed that maybe for our old ancestors having this bacteria in the stomach happened initially by accident, but due to natural selection, H. pylori made a set of adaptations, enabling the bacterium to survive and also thrive in the surface of human gastric epithelial cells. To everyone’s surprise, after millions years of living in human stomach, H. pylori became a strategic member of our microbiome. Undoubtedly, it is no exaggeration to say that both host and the bacterium are following a constant beneficial relationship, which is quite unique in biological world. After long period of H. pylori gastric colonization, it has evolved into a highly adaptable persistent bacterium, obtaining all necessary features of the most successful human pathogen.

Remarkably, H. pylori can undergo drastic genetic change through each generation, while human genes do not change frequently. As a result, frequent genetic changes in H. pylori helped the bacterium to adapt quickly.


The spread of a beneficial mutation in experimental bacterial populations
Abstract
The spread of beneficial mutations through populations is at the core of evolutionary change. A long-standing hindrance to understanding mutational sweeps was that beneficial mutations have been slow to be identified, even in commonly studied experimental populations. The lack of information on what constitutes a beneficial mutation has led to many uncertainties about the frequency, fitness benefit and fixation of beneficial mutations.


Bacteria Show Capacity for Rapid, Beneficial Mutations
Researchers discovered that bacteria can evolve much more efficiently than once thought, which might help develop better ways to treat nasty infections.

AUSTIN, Texas — Scientists studying how microbes evolve have long assumed that nearly all new genetic mutations get passed down at a predictable pace and usually without either helping or hurting the microbe in adapting to its environment. In a new study published in the journal Nature, an international team of researchers studying tens of thousands of generations of E. coli bacteria report that most new genetic mutations that were passed down were actually beneficial and occurred at much more variable rates than previously thought. The finding could have implications for treating bacterial infections.
.......
The researchers sequenced the entire genomes of hundreds of versions of E. coli bacteria sampled over tens of thousands of generations to pinpoint the genes with beneficial mutations that gave the bacteria a competitive edge over their ancestors.
.......
The team sequenced hundreds of E. coli genomes to examine how the bacteria had changed in their DNA over 50,000 generations. The researchers found more than 14,000 changes across the LTEE’s 12 populations. Each population changed in different ways, but there were some important commonalities as well. Most significantly, the mutations were concentrated in a subset of the genes – those where mutations gave the bacteria a competitive edge.

“We are used to thinking about evolutionary time being measured in quiet ticks, each one representing neutral mutations accumulating in genomes, with an occasional chime or gong, representing a beneficial mutation,” says Barrick. “But, under normal circumstances, the evolutionary clock for bacteria may be more cacophonous than quiet.”

One of the striking differences that arose between populations is that half of them evolved to mutate at much higher rates than the other populations, even though they all started from the same ancestral strain that had a low mutation rate. In some of these “hypermutating” strains, the rate at which mutations accumulate ramped up early on in the experiment and then slowed down thousands of generations later. Barrick says that makes sense because over time, there are fewer ways to improve, and as more mutations accumulate, there’s a growing risk of adding harmful mutations.

“Overall, it’s interesting that mutation rates are so evolvable, and that they naturally adjust to be high and then low depending on how well adapted a population is to its environment, even in this very stripped down microcosm version of the real world,” says Barrick.

This suggests that a key assumption behind techniques for dating how long ago two related organisms began to diverge – namely, that mutations accumulate at a stable rate over time — might not accurately represent the true dynamics for many microbes.

Still Bacteria.
When are you going to show me the process it took for evolution to produce the sloth? Or are you refusing because you can't show me anything, other the speculative views of evolutionists?

 

[nPeace]

The fossil record starting from extinct tree apes to hairy apes who walked a small amount, going through many species increasing brain size with the introduction of scavenging and insect eating, eventually we see body hair loss with the introduction of a new ventalation system (sweating), then species who made tools and writings and buried their dead and eventually right up to H. Heilelbergensis who wore clothes, made tools and may have spoken some language. Maybe even had a spirituality.
The ape right before the emergence of H. Sapien ape. (us)
But the process of just that change takes 1000s of years of small changes until we see actual humans around 100,000 years ago.
The full process from tree ape is many millions of years.

Yes, I already am familiar with the story. Thanks.

 

[blü 2]

No I don't deny having great grandparents.
They have always been observed to be human.

But you've never seen them. That's the entire basis of your argument against evolution. You need to be consistent here ─ either the present can imply the real past, or it can't.

Fact: We know that design requires a designer.

Actual fact: we know that our observations of nature have never provided evidence of intelligent design. There is no factual basis for a designer. It's a religious assumption.

Does life require a designer? Yes, because life is a product of design - living machines.

Actual fact: what I said above.

Therefore, using deductive reasoning - design requires a designer; life is a product of design; life requires a designer.

First, again what I said above. Second, evolution accounts for what you call 'design'. For that reason your division of things into designed and not designed is inept and misleading when applied to biology. Third, you still haven't told me how the first sloth arose.

Not knowing the designer, does not annul the design

The one thing we know about the designer is that it's magic. I keep asking you how magic works but you don't know. I keep pointing out that we have not a single authenticated example of magic anywhere, but that doesn't stop you pretending magic is real.

Why does man not want to give credit to the designer

Because as you yourself appear to acknowledge, nothing is known about the designer, including whether it's benevolent, malevolent, arbitrary, or purposeful in any admirable way. But especially because like the Easter bunny it's imaginary. If you disagree, just give a satisfactory demonstration of its reality.

'Answer: . . .although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him

What's God got to do with the designer?

Your claim about magic seems like a fun experience to you

It's your magic, at the center of our differences of view, and I keep asking you to explain it and you keep not explaining it.

Science is a tool.

How nice we can agree on at least one thing.

I think people try to exploit it for their fight against God.

I have no idea what a real god, a god with objective existence, might be, nor has anyone been able to tell me. (Imaginary gods, no problem, of course ─ they're whatever anyone wants them to be.) For that reason I'm not even an atheist, since I have no idea what real thing the word 'God' is intended to denote. I have nothing to fight against, nor do I.

Sorry, but do you think God is waiting for puny men with newly invented tech to come along in a few meager years, to tell him about light waves. God must be laughing so hard. I could just see him and his heavenly host now.

You can? Then I look forward to your posting a photo.

God is not limited by our imagination.

We can discuss that when you give me a satisfactory definition of a real god ─ one with objective existence ─ such that if we find a candidate we'll be able to tell whether it's god / God or not. After all, if God is not imaginary, there must be such a definition. And the lack of such a definition is very strong evidence that God is imaginary.

What does man really know?

At a guess, not much, but still a great deal more than formerly.

So how did the first sloth come to exist?

How and why does magic work?

And since you've brought God into the conversation, what objective test will tell us whether any real suspect is God or not?


Oh, and please answer those questions directly. The history of helium has NOTHING to do with those questions, nor does your video explain anything I'm asking you.

 

[nPeace]

But you've never seen them. That's the entire basis of your argument against evolution. You need to be consistent here ─ either the present can imply the real past, or it can't.

No it is not. These are arguments that you keep trying to put in my mouth.

Actual fact: we know that our observations of nature have never provided evidence of intelligent design. There is no factual basis for a designer. It's a religious assumption.

Could you show me that please.

Actual fact: what I said above.
First, again what I said above. Second, evolution accounts for what you call 'design'. For that reason your division of things into designed and not designed is inept and misleading when applied to biology. Third, you still haven't told me how the first sloth arose.

I'll like first to see that evidence showing that it's not design.

 

[blü 2]

No it is not. These are arguments that you keep trying to put in my mouth.

Could you show me that please.

I'll like first to see that evidence showing that it's not design.

And once again you don't address the questions that matter, the large holes in your coat.

How did the first sloth come about?

How does magic work?

Are you now saying the designer is God?

What is a sufficient definition of a real God such that we could determine whether any real candidate is God or not?

 

[joelr]

ng my posts, or just skipping through them, and ignoring some things... while just repeating the word magic.



Why not think of the fact that on matters of science, the Bible is well ahead, and perhaps most ancient civilizations too.

The bible had one chance to show it knew science, but it claimed pi was 3.
The end.

1 Kings 7:23 King James
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

"This is very very awful. Ask any high school student the value of pi and they'll say, "Three point one four, and then some." Then what on earth is a value of 3 doing in the infallible Word of God? Anything else we can translate and interpret into neat fashion but numbers stand like diamonds: they're either right or they are wrong. And the value of 3 for pi in the Bible is wrong. Now what?

• The Bible isn't a science book. It's more like a story. Like an analogy.

Fine. Science the way we do it didn't exist until the seventeenth century. But if the Bible isn't a science book, there should be no pi in the Bible. The Bible shouldn't make any scientific statement. Now that it did, we see that it states a fallacy."
1 Kings 7:23 | Yikes! The number Pi in the Bible | A groovy commentary



So the question is now to creationists who say the earth is 5 or 10,000 years old because the bible says so.
If pi is wrong how do you know the bible wasn't also off on the age of the earth?

Of course the larger question is weather the universe had a creator or not this doesn't mean any religion is literally true at all. Not even a little? If the universe was created can Zeus be real?
That still wouldn't make any sense and nor does any religion.

 

[viole]

I don't know how you arrived at some theological reason You'll have to explain.
As far as I can tell, the argument is a philosophical one - however you arrived at you belief.


Why do skeptics create such weird imaginations?
Is it not true that our limited understanding varies from person to person, and is it not true we believe what we find believable?
So if you find it believable that the unexplained arrival of complex chemicals found their way in an unexplainable ocean of water, and began to do the boogie, until an accidental bounce created the right chemical mix, to form a blob of a living cell, from whence a series of next to impossible processes resulted in the variety of highly complex organisms made up of trillions of blobs of cells, eventually forming you... what can I say? You've made your bed. You get to sleep in it. Sweet dreams.

I believe that it is not sensible to believe that story could be true, not only because the evidence does not support it, but because it does not seem reasonable to believe that trillions of cells miraculously self assembled into intelligent organized systems.
It seems both reasonable and logical, to accept the sensible conclusion reached by using fact based evidence - one of which I mentioned.
Design requires a designer. Life is a product of design. Life requires a designer. This is clearly observable.

As engineers we are aware of this fact. We can even go further to discuss the information in the cell, with its instructions, and rules.
Were it not for rules, and instructions, how could chemicals combine to form anything.
The wrong combination can have drastically negative results.

What caused things to move in a direction of organized physical and spiritual chemicals? Why does the most complex and most advanced life-forms yearn for spiritual qualities - love, justice, the proper use of knowledge - wisdom?
I mean... I could go on, but it boggles my mind how people can believe in evolution. You just have no idea how mind-blowing it is.

Tell me... Please, what logical reasoning do you use to not believe in, or deny an intelligent supernatural being?

First off: we do not believe in evolution. In the same way we do not believe the sun is a star. We know it. Belief is appropriate for less certain conclusions.

Second: do you really think virtually all biologists think that zillions of cells assembled magically to form a thinking/believing machine? If you do, I suggest you attend some basic biology courses.

Third: you find mind boggling that people can “believe” evolution. I find it mind boggling that people, who demonstrably know nothing about biology, believe that all biologists are victim of a mass delusion. Your surprise is the same surprise that people have when they enter the freeway the wrong way, and wonder why all others drive in the same wrong direction.

Fourth: the rational arguments that led me to disbelief the supernatural are probably the same arguments that you might use to dismiss Santa or Mother Goose. Since they have the same evidnce, they are all equally plausible.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Your lack of theological acuteness aside, I am curious how you would support this assertion. How did you come to the conclusion that using the homo sapiens as a chosen species for the incarnation is an irrational decision?

Ha, but I did not mean that. What Does not look so rational is believing that homo sapiens, the ultimate reason for the creation of the Universe, has been created from scratch (did not evolve) using apes as inspiration. Actually, it looks pretty silly.

And I admit I do not have theological acumen. While trying to convince a friend from Ireland that leprchauns do not exist, I might have shown lack of acumen in leprechaunology, as well.

Guilty as charged.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Apologes]

Ha, but I did not mean that. What Does not look so rational is believing that homo sapiens, the ultimate reason for the creation of the Universe, has been created from scratch (did not evolve) using apes as inspiration. Actually, it looks pretty silly.

In the post I quoted you listed multiple things that you found irrational. One of them was:

"The being my son will incarnate to. What should he look like....."

The proposition that homo sapiens were not a part of evolution is irrational due to the large amount of evidence against it. But what argument do you have against the rationality of incarnation under the circumstances it is purported to have taken place?

And I admit I do not have theological acumen. While trying to convince a friend from Ireland that leprchauns do not exist, I might have shown lack of acumen in leprechaunology, as well.

Guilty as charged.

Theology is an actual academic discipline and has been a part of academic institutions for as long as they've existed. It's going strong today still with plenty journals and institutions dedicated to it.
Last time I checked, the study of leprechauns enjoyed no such status.

Your attempts at degrading theology by comparing it to such things are only damaging your case more.

Really, there is little difference between cheap creationist arguments that are seen in the OP and the stereotypical atheist polemic that you're flaunting here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hi @blü 2, hope you had a good night's rest, and your day is going well.
I need you to clarify two things for me, as I want to make certain my next post is absolutely clear for you, okay?
You said...

What is the argument from my pocket that I presented?
Could you answer another question also, please.
Hebrews 3:4 says, Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.
If I say to you, I believe what this verse says, and I also believe that we have a variety of species (I hope you understand what I mean by species now) of the same kind, by means of reproduction, and adaptation, what process do you think I believe is responsible for the arrival of grasshopper / octopus / toucan / cayman / pangolin / frog / man...?
Thanks

What I would ask you is, why do you believe the Bible (verse) to be true?