How does the story of Adam and Eve compatible with science?

[ratiocinator]

I know how the theory works; lady luck and the gods of casino science.

The second part of the sentence falsifies the first.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nope, I actually said:

…and that was only because I had heard of the term beneficial mutation.

Right. "Few if any are beneficial" acknowledges that SOME are beneficial.

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.

So you dismiss literally anything that uses qualifiers?

So, anything that admits healthy skepticism?

I thought you were accusing evolution of dogmatism, and yet here you are acknowledging that the scientists clearly don't use dogmatic language and admit uncertainty. So, which is it?

Also, I don't believe you have honestly read and understood the study. I'm willing to bet you scanned it for any uncertain language and pulled those parts out as if it means anything. In fact, you very demonstrably have been dishonest here in quoting that part of the study without what comes after. Here it is (emphasis mine, with the part you quoted in red and with the part you left out in bold):

"The central role of beneficial mutations for adaptive processes in natural populations is well established. Thus, there has been a long-standing interest to study the nature of beneficial mutations. Their 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. For an experimental proof of this assumption, we used a novel marker system to trace adaptive events in an evolving Escherichia coli culture and to determine the selective advantage of those beneficial mutations. Ten parallel cultures were propagated for about 1,000 generations by serial transfer, and 66 adaptive events were identified. From this data set, we estimate the rate of beneficial mutations to be 4 × 10−9 per cell and generation. Consistent with an exponential distribution of the fitness effects, we observed a large fraction of advantageous mutations with a small effect and only few with large effect. The mean selection coefficient of advantageous mutations in our experiment was 0.02."

The paper is explicitly about FINDING EXPERIMENTAL PROOF of the previous assumption and finding a way to MORE ACCURATELY deduce beneficial mutation rates. It GIVES EXPLICIT DETAIL AS TO EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID TO DETERMINE THE RATE THAT THEY ARRIVED AT. To frame it as them therefore saying their CONCLUSION is guesswork is just blatant dishonesty.

I have answered your challenge and provided you with a statistical probability. What do you have next?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

0.001%, as guessed by the the source above is very relevant showing your beliefs to be absolutely absurd.

Not when you remember that we are talking about hundreds of thousands of species reproducing offspring over millions of years.

For example, on average between 130 and 140 million human babies are born every year. This means that, every year, between 130 and 140 thousand beneficial mutations arise in humans. And humans actually reproduce VERY SLOWLY compared to the vast majority of other animals, which are likely to accrue beneficial mutations at a significantly faster rate.

 

[Apostle John]

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).

I understand ToE is a complete lie based on pure speculation with absolutely no experimental data to support it. The evolutionists you follow believe in macroevolution, have made up the term beneficial mutation to support it and assume differences in the dna of different species are positive changes but macroevolution has never been observed and doesn’t happen in reality.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I understand ToE is a complete lie based on pure speculation with absolutely no experimental data to support it.

Here is a search for scholarly articles on experimental studies of evolutionary biology that turned up 4.5 million results:

Google Scholar

scholar.google.co.uk

The evolutionists you follow believe in macroevolution, have made up the term beneficial mutation to support it and assume differences in the dna of different species are positive changes but macroevolution has never been observed and doesn’t happen in reality.

Yes it has.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of macroevolutionary theory and common descent. It is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or...

www.talkorigins.org

 

[Apostle John]

For example, on average between 130 and 140 million human babies are born every year. This means that, every year, between 130 and 140 thousand beneficial mutations arise in humans. And humans actually reproduce VERY SLOWLY compared to the vast majority of other animals, which are likely to accrue beneficial mutations at a significantly faster rate.

In your example what 0.001% of so called ‘beneficial mutations’ have been seen in humans and what’s happened to the 0.999% of other mutations and how does any of it show macroevolution.

 

[Apostle John]

Here is a search for scholarly articles on experimental studies of evolutionary biology that turned up 4.5 million results:

Google Scholar

scholar.google.co.uk

Yes it has.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of macroevolutionary theory and common descent. It is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or...

www.talkorigins.org

None of that has demonstrated macroevolution. But hey, if you think it has, as you state, point a quotation out. I cannot see a single one.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In your example what 0.001% of so called ‘beneficial mutations’ have been seen in humans and what’s happened to the 0.999% of other mutations and how does any of it show macroevolution.

So you're just going to ignore the fact that I answered your challenge, refuse to admit you were wrong, and just move on to making unreasonable demands? Cool.

If you want a comprehensive list of every single beneficial mutation humans accrue, you're going to have to find someone slightly more omniscient to answer that. We're talking about minute changes over vast amounts of time spread out within a population of billions.

As for what happened to the other mutations, selective pressures reduced their number or eliminated them entirely. Remember, what's "beneficial" or not is determined by what mutations lead to an increased likelihood of the individual organism surviving and producing offspring, and those offspring will most likely carry that same beneficial mutation. So, when we talk about mutations as beneficial vs those that are neutral or detrimental, you have to remember that the neutral or detrimental mutations are less likely to result in offspring. It's a self-selective process.

It's so simple it's actually a tautology. If a mutation makes an organism more likely to survive and reproduce, then that mutation is more likely to survive and reproduce.

As for macro-evolution, evolution above the species-level has been directly observed multiple times.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

None of that has demonstrated macroevolution.

You claimed there was no experimental data to support evolution. I provided you with a list of 4.5 MILLION PAPERS ABOUT EXPERIMENTS CARRIED OUT IN THE FIELD OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY.

You were wrong. Next claim.

But hey, if you think it has, as you state, point a quotation out. I cannot see a single one.

I just gave you multiple lists of observed instances of macro-evolution. Perhaps it would help if you explained what you think macro-evolution constitutes.

 

[Apostle John]

So you're just going to ignore the fact that I answered your challenge, refuse to admit you were wrong, and just move on to making unreasonable demands? Cool.

If you want a comprehensive list of every single beneficial mutation humans accrue, you're going to have to find someone slightly more omniscient to answer that. We're talking about minute changes over vast amounts of time spread out within a population of billions.

As for what happened to the other mutations, selective pressures reduced their number or eliminated them entirely. Remember, what's "beneficial" or not is determined by what mutations lead to an increased likelihood of the individual organism surviving and producing offspring, and those offspring will most likely carry that same beneficial mutation. So, when we talk about mutations as beneficial vs those that are neutral or detrimental, you have to remember that the neutral or detrimental mutations are less likely to result in offspring. It's a self-selective process.

It's so simple it's actually a tautology. If a mutation makes an organism more likely to survive and reproduce, then that mutation is more likely to survive and reproduce.

As for macro-evolution, evolution above the species-level has been directly observed multiple times.

You claimed there was no experimental data to support evolution. I provided you with a list of 4.5 MILLION PAPERS ABOUT EXPERIMENTS CARRIED OUT IN THE FIELD OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY.

You were wrong. Next claim.


I just gave you multiple lists of observed instances of macro-evolution. Perhaps it would help if you explained what you think macro-evolution constitutes.

Why can you not supply a single quotation from just one of these experiments to show how a different kind of organism has been made and not just species within species changes. We creationists believe the latter happens. You will probably have come up with a different definition of species.

 

[ratiocinator]

None of that has demonstrated macroevolution.

Back to bearing false witness. Macroevolution is defined as evolution at species level and above and you've been given examples of speciation. There is no fundamental difference between micro- and macroevolution anyway, macro is just lots of micro.

This is why creationists have to indulge in dishonesty. They try to redefine macroevolution in terms of 'kinds', rather than species, and, of course, 'kind' is just something they've made up and never properly define, so they can keep on moving the goalposts.

 

[Apostle John]

Back to bearing false witness. Macroevolution is defined as evolution at species level and above and you've been given examples of speciation. There is no fundamental difference between micro- and macroevolution anyway, macro is just lots of micro.

This is why creationists have to indulge in dishonesty. They try to redefine macroevolution in terms of 'kinds', rather than species, and, of course, 'kind' is just something they've made up and never properly define, so they can keep on moving the goalposts.

Why can you not supply a single quotation from just one of these experiments to show how a different kind of organism has been made and not just species within species changes. We creationists believe the latter happens. You will probably have come up with a different definition of species.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why can you not supply a single quotation from just one of these experiments to show how a different kind of organism has been made and not just species within species changes.

What on earth are you talking about?

"Different kind of organism"?

"Not just species within species changes"?

You do realise that these things aren't claimed by evolutionary theory, right? All change is within the taxa.

We creationists believe the latter happens. You will probably have come up with a different definition of species.

You creationists apparently believe there are no experiments in the field of evolutionary biology, even with provided 4.5 MILLION scholarly papers detailing experimental data in the field of evolutionary biology.

And I'm only just now coming to realise that you don't even know how evolution is claimed to work. Remarkable.

Do you want me to explain why the statements you made above prove you know nothing about evolution?

 

[Apostle John]

What on earth are you talking about?

"Different kind of organism"?

"Not just species within species changes"?

You do realise that these things aren't claimed by evolutionary theory, right? All change is within the taxa.


You creationists apparently believe there are no experiments in the field of evolutionary biology, even with provided 4.5 MILLION scholarly papers detailing experimental data in the field of evolutionary biology.

And I'm only just now coming to realise that you don't even know how evolution is claimed to work. Remarkable.

Do you want me to explain why the statements you made above prove you know nothing about evolution?

You know an ape cannot mate with a human to produce anything right? Now give an example in just one of these experiments where a different species has been observed on that basis. Surely you can do that.

 

[ratiocinator]

This is why creationists have to indulge in dishonesty. They try to redefine macroevolution in terms of 'kinds', rather than species, and, of course, 'kind' is just something they've made up and never properly define, so they can keep on moving the goalposts.

Why can you not supply a single quotation from just one of these experiments to show how a different kind of organism has been made...

QED.

...and not just species within species changes.

You've been given speciation event examples, so they are not species within species changes.

You will probably have come up with a different definition of species.

It's a standard scientific definition. In organisms that reproduce sexually, it's generally regarded as a different species when they can't or don't mate and produce fertile offspring. You have been given example of this. In fact you can observe it across geographical area, rather than time:

Ring species - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's creationists that have to invent a new supposed barrier to (redefined) macroevolution ('kind') because they can't deny the evidence for speciation.

 

[Apostle John]

In fact you can observe it across geographical area, rather than time:

Ring species - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That link says this:
‘However, it is unclear whether any of the examples of ring species cited by scientists actually permit gene flow from end to end, with many being debated and contested.’

Are you making up nonsense as you go along? A desperate attempt to win debates with disinformation?

 

[ratiocinator]

That link says this:
‘However, it is unclear whether any of the examples of ring species cited by scientists actually permit gene flow from end to end, with many being debated and contested.’

And....?

 

[Apostle John]

And....?

Is it not more unsubstantiated drivel. They can probably breed.

 

[ratiocinator]

Is it not more unsubstantiated drivel.

Why?

They can probably breed.

They don't.

And, of course, you're again totally ignoring the other evidence and examples given, in the (mistaken) belief that you can challenge this one.

Speciation happens. Most creationists have to admit that, which is why they invented the undefined 'kind'. You really have some serious catching up to do. I'm familiar with creationist dishonesty and botched attempts at science. You are a gaff-prone amateur even in that disgraceful company.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You know an ape cannot mate with a human to produce anything right?

Depends on the ape. Since humans are apes, apes can reproduce with humans. But different species of apes cannot reproduce offspring with humans.

Now give an example in just one of these experiments where a different species has been observed on that basis. Surely you can do that.

I've already given you multiple lists of observed speciation.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com