Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You dodged my question. There is no requirement for anyone to give you evidence that you cannot understand. And you just tacitly admitted that even if the evidence was given to you you could not understand it.
-
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!
How does the story of Adam and Eve compatible with science?
- Thread starter InvestigateTruth
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That claim puts a heavy burden of proof upon you. What is "fabricated" about her find? If you have honest objections the odds are that you your errors can be explained to you. If you just want to use the ostrich defense no one can help you. The problem is that you will still be claiming that your God is a liar.
My point is, what qualifies you to decide whether the science is valid or not? Does personal opinion get to discard the science when the vast majority of scientists in multiple fields of science all agree that evolution is true? It's just as irrational as the students disputing the math in that picture.
It’s funny how Christian extremists will accept science when it doesn’t conflict with bad interpretations of Genesis. But biology? There’s fake skepticism.
I call it fake faith. A faith that cannot withstand having one's cherished beliefs questions, is fake faith.
I don't see why creationism is still a thing. It's like still believing Elvis is still alive after all this time. Thank you very much.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You got the evidence you asked for. You ignored it, or just called it false without justification. That isn't debate, it's just contradiction.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, then just do that as absolute for all of the world for all cases of you doing something and don't do anything else. If it is that absolute, you don't have to do anything else than Pythagoras theorem.
That is called reductio ad absurdum and it works even on the absolute, because I am in at least some cases absolutely different than you. Go figure.
And now use your coping on me and yet I will still do the same the next time we play absolute, if capable.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Try rephrasing that into a sentence that actually makes sense.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Most actually have no effect on fitness at all.
And a few being beneficial, is all that the process of evolution needs.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I'm still not convinced he is serious.
I still think there's a reasonable chance the dude is just trolling and actually just a satirical Poe.
Apostle John
“Go ahead, look up Revelation 6”
Not for the following. I’ll ask it again:
I’d have to see evidence of the percentage of mutations you’ve been told are ‘beneficial mutations’ as opposed to those having neutral/negative effects before I can see if that is a reason that you believe in ToE.
I doubt anything will be given but remember, you are the proponents of evidence.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Naturally, it varies. I have heard it's somewhere around 1/1000 per individual organism per generation.
SOURCE: Population Genetics Made Simple.
This paper calculates the rate of beneficial mutations to be "4 × 10^−9 per cell and generation".
SOURCE: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.98.3.1113
I mean, I have no idea why your acceptance of this idea requires you to hear a percentage per se. You've already acknowledged that beneficial mutations occur.
You've been given quite a lot already and ignored it all, to be fair.
Last edited:
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
All this shows is that you don't understand the theory. The exact percentage is irrelevant.
Unless you have some grasp of the theory itself, you will have no idea what evidence is needed to support or falsify it. That is true of all theories in science. You can't test them without understanding them well enough to know what to look for.
Criticising from a position of total ignorance is never going to persuade anybody. All you acheive is making a fool of yourself.
It depends on how the flood happened. If it came as I think it came, I don't think it is reasonable to expect globally distributed layer that could be recognized everywhere.
I agree with that. And I think we have lot of geological evidence for it:
1. Gas oil and coal fields.
2. Marine fossils on high mountain areas.
3. Modern continents.
4. Vast sediment formations
5. Orogenic mountains
Please explain what do you mean with that in practice. If for example there was one pair of bears in the ark and rest of them drowned, what would reduction of genetic variation mean in that case?
Apostle John
“Go ahead, look up Revelation 6”
Nope, I actually said:
…and that was only because I had heard of the term beneficial mutation.
So I looked at that and it said this:
“About 90 percent of DNA is thought to be non-functional, and mutations there generally have no effect. The remaining 10 percent is functional, and has an influence on the properties of an organism, as it is used to direct the synthesis of proteins that guide the metabolism of the organism. Mutations to this 10 percent can be neutral, beneficial, or harmful. Probably less than half of the mutations to this 10 percent of DNA are neutral. Of the remainder, 999/1000 are harmful or fatal and the remainder may be beneficial.”
I thought 0.001% was ridiculously low, preposterous even, for ToE to work but look at the bold, they’ve guessed those figures.
Now a look at that data:
Quote “Their [beneficial mutations] low frequency, however, has made this class of mutations almost inaccessible for systematic studies. In the absence of experimental data, the distribution of the fitness effects of beneficial mutations was assumed to resemble that of deleterious mutations”.
As anticipated more complete guesswork, probably based in retrospective back fitting, making ToE a total fabricated lie.
Apostle John
“Go ahead, look up Revelation 6”
0.001%, as guessed by the the source above is very relevant showing your beliefs to be absolutely absurd.
Last edited:
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
I know how the theory works; lady luck and the gods of casino science. But common sense says, random changes to an otherwise organized/ordered system like life, will be net destructive. If we start with a large population, and employ random changes to the DNA, and say one such change is beneficial for natural selection; one lottery ticket winner, the rest of the population will still have genetic based defects; did not win the lottery but lost money. The next cycle, we start with 90% of the original population, etc., do this again, until it goes extinct. In this scenario, selective advantage more often goes to the least sick and not the most vigorous.
In modern times, there are many illnesses that can be attributed to genetic factors. Can you name any modern beneficial genetic changes, discovered over the past 10 years? We use genetic based protocols to compensate for bad genes, but we do not add progressive genetic change to the population, since it is not so clear cut, like the defects.
How about we do an experiment on you; hypothetical, where we will work under the assumption, if we could change the right gene, we can make you as smart as Albert Einstein. That is lottery ticket grand prize. To get there, you need to buy tickets which means you need to allow us to randomly alter your genetics, until you win the grand prize. You will need to buy a lot of ticket or we will need to make a lot of random changes, each with the hope of winning. I bet you get sick way before you become smart. All but one of these tickets will be a loser, with the winning ticket, even if randomly distributed on any given day, will typically come too late, before sickness dominates and the smart is not useful to you.
The biggest problem with genetic theory is its lottery ticket mentality, which fixates on the accurate catalog of past winners. But it ignores the much larger number of past losers; house of grim reaper wins due to all the bad tickets, even if one wins. There is an addiction behavior; fantasy and faith, that helps promote gaming addiction, even in science theory.
There is a way to fix this and the theory of evolution. Water needs to be placed on center stage, even before the DNA. Nothing works properly in cells without water. There is no substitute for water, that can make enough things work, to allow the expression we call life. This is not a lottery ticket argument, but cause and affect based on facts. Water is a sure thing.
The fluid nature of life is based on secondary bonding forces, with the properties of water based on the strongest of these secondary bonding forces within life; hydrogen bonding. Each tiny water molecule.; H2O, can form up to four hydrogen bonds with other water molecules. This makes water, pound for pound, the king of secondary bonding forces in the cell and in life. Since all things in life have to interact with water, including the DNA, secondary bonding stability within the water globally and locally dominates at the secondary bonding level. Random does not apply when one entity dominates; loads all the dice.
In terms of water and evolution, change is not exactly random, but has a sense of direction; loaded dice, connected to water trying to maximize its secondary bonding potential. When that happens to change on the DNA, life advances. There are sweets spots. Water sour spots that do not benefit the water, tend to be altered to better fit into the water matrix. This allows water to lode the dice and beat the odds, so the organized systems of life can net advance; evolve.
Last edited:
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You thought wrong because you don't understand the theory. It just doesn't matter because harmful mutations die out quickly and beneficial ones spread through the population - as I have explained in detail to you at least three times now and you've totally ignored. Wilful ignorance and a refusal to learn doesn't do your case any favours at all (but is sadly typical of creationists).