Putting God's Design In Perspective

[Cdmeyer]

The problem is that the context of the God, Creation, Our universe, as the writers of the Bible thought were to be literal is out of context of the contemporary world. Yes, over the millennia apologists have interpreted the Bible in an attempt to make it fit, but nonetheless these interpretations do not fit as the Church Fathers intended and believed.

Why do you think the "Church fathers have any special knowledge on the subject"? They were men just as you and I are with no special knowledge except that they were closer in time to what Jesus said.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

all you have to do is grow a flagellum in the lab (In the same way scientists grew “resistance to antibiotics”) and evolution would be proven to be the best explanation for the origin of the flagellum

One cannot demonstrate anything to a faith-based thinker that the faith-based thinker doesn't want to believe. He is not constrained to considering evidence discompassionately with the ability to recognize a sound argument and a willingness to be convinced by one. He begins with his faith-based belief as axiomatically true, and whatever doesn't suggest that he is correct is dismissed as incorrect for that reason.

You defined objective as existing outside the mind. The issue is though, you cannot presupose God does not exist without first testing this

We do not need to presuppose that god does not exist. There is no god in the rational skeptic's world view because there is insufficient reason to believe that one exists. God cannot be thrown out of such a worldview since no god was ever a part of it. The burden of proof is on the theist to demonstrate that his belief is correct, or more likely to be correct, than the alternative. If you want to convince the rational skeptic that you are correct, you're going to need compelling evidence.

But, you may say, how can we test that which we dont see? Well thats where the tests got to be creative. We cant see wind, gravity, light (no, we dont see light, we see what it shines on). We dont see atoms, we dont see other peoples dreams, we can only see brain waves firing off, we dont see feelings or emotions, ect. Its no different with God.

You're committing an equivocation fallacy by using the word see in two different ways, the first meaning to detect by any method, the other meaning to detect with the eyes. There is evidence for gravity which we "see" every tine we drop an apple even though we cannot literally see a gravitational field.

There is evidence for each of the phenomena you listed, often not available to to the unaided eye. There is no equivalent evidence for any god or gods. If the stars in the sky rearranged one day to spell out "I am God," we have an example of a physical phenomenon evident to all with functioning eyes that could be indirect evidence of a being or rave with godlike powers. ou can probably think of other physical, detectable manifestations of nature that would speak to the existence of a god if any of them occurred. None has, which is what we would expect in a godless universe, or one occupied by gods that didn't want to be discovered.

So.let's rewrite your first sentence containing the question how can we test that which we dont see? to say how can we test that which we can't detect in any manner? The answer is that we cannot test for the undetectable. What is needed is the detection of some phenomenon that is better explained by positing the existence of a god.

Have you ever noticed how much the undetectable has in common with the nonexistent?

Theres a strew of peer reviewed journals on alot of this stuff.

There is not a single physical finding published in any peer reviewed journal that is better explained by positing the existence of a super-human intelligent designer. The rational skeptic has no reason to believe that gods exist until someone can give him one, and therefore has no need for that hypothesis. We could suggest untold number of possibilities about what might be true, but should accept none of them as likely to be true until we find some physical phenomenon observable to the naked senses or to scientific instruments better explained by the that possibility being actual.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

.ID is falsifiable as i see it.

How? What physical finding would cause you to abandon the hypothesis? If the answer is that nothing could make you believe that there is no intelligent designer in a godless universe, then your belief is unfalsifiable by definition. Falsifiable does not mean that something can be shown to be false, but that there exists the possibility that if the statement is incorrect, that there is in principle the possibility of demonstrating that to be the case.

The whole point is if all vital parts arent there at once, the complex organism wont work.

That argument is easily debunked just by watching a mamallian fetus develop from a single cell, the zygote. The organism goes from one with no organs at all (I'm excluding organelles) to one with a functioning heart and lungs. All the vital parts are there for the developing organism at each stage of its embryogenesis, or it would die in the womb.

my suggestion is that unlike “resistance to antibiotics” flagellums are irreducible complex

And how do you propose to demonstrate that? What test, observation, measurement, or algorithm can demonstrate that a biological system is irreducibly complex? Until something can be shown to be impossible, it is perforce possible. If you cannot demonstrate that unguided biological evolution could not possibly generate flagella, then it remains possible in the broader sense of the word.

We can acknowledge two meanings of possible, the first meaning things that it is known can actually occur, such as an asteroid colliding with earth, the second including things that are in fact impossible, but which we have not demonstrated that they are impossible yet.

If you or anybody else could demonstrate that flagella could not have developed without the input of an intelligent designer, you will have falsified Darwin's theory. Until that happens, the naturalistic explanation remains viable, and in fact preferred, since it requires no gods, the insertion of which into any hypothesis makes it much less parsimonious and this a violation of Occam's Razor. But that brings us full circle back to the original question: How could you possible demonstrate irreducible complexity in any biological system? To my knowledge, one cannot, even in an irreducibly complex subsystem if there were one in living things.

whats the point of doing science then?

Science allows us to predict and at times control outcomes, a very valuable contribution to the human condition. Isn't that reason enough to continue doing science?

 

[leroy]

Postulating a designer to explain things like complexity or "fine-tuning" gets you nowhere. It isn't an explanation for those things, it just moves the problem somewhere else. Instead of "why this complex, ordered, fine-tuned universe?", we just have "why this complex, ordered, fine-tuned designer?" It's actually a step in the wrong direction.

Postulating that Humans created the pyramids gets you now where, you are just moving the problem somewhere else, ¿if humans created the pyramids, then who/what created humans?........you see the point?.... every single explanation opens the door for new questions, this “problem” (assuming that it is a problem) is not exclusive for ID everybody has this same problem.

It is perfectly valid to say “humans caused pyramids” and “I don’t know what caused humans” just like it is valid to say that an intelligent designer caused the universe and “I don’t know what caused the designer “

 

[leroy]

I did not read this correctly when I first read your post, but my previous statements addressing this still stand. You want proof of evolution.

I would say first and foremost that science is not about providing proofs. Even in something as solid, longstanding and supported as the theory of evolution is, it must remain contingent in theory. There is always the chance that new information could falsify the theory. Predictably, this new information would need to be established as something in the physical world that would not be explained by the existing theory and not merely claims that God, a designer or irreducible complexity did it.

There exists a large and growing body of evidence produced by multiple different disciplines in science, that is best explained by the theory of evolution and does not require appeal to a deity or other supernatural cause to explain it.

My point is that you are suppose to show that evolution is true using “your logic”

any evidence for evolution won’t count unless you establish a priori that evolution is true (this seems to be your logic)…but perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

 

[leroy]

Oh, THERE you are! I was wondering where you'd scampered off to avoid the tough stuff:

I also note that creationist essays on the subject (Haldane's 'dilemma') rarely if ever mentioned these papers:


Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA Vol.71,No.9,pp.3716-3720,
September 1974

An Analysis of the Cost-of-Selection Concept
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/71/9/3716.full.pdf


Proc.Nat.Acad.Sci.USA
Vol.71,No.10,pp.3863-3865,October 1974

Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/71/10/3863.full.pdf


and:


You and your sources appear to put mathematical models above actual evidence when it suits them (funny how the same folks are typically dismissive of climate change mathematical models).

What I NEVER see in such essays are an accounting of WHY they claim x-number of mutations is too few - i.e., I NEVER see any explanation as to how they know it is too few. I NEVER see an accounting of how many mutations they know it would take to get B-trait from A-trait in an ancestor.

This is the fail of ALL of these proclamations, from ReMine to Sanford to creation dot com. They merely seek to argue via big numbers with no actual rationale.



You need to explain how you determined that 500,000 mutations IS too few. All I see are assertions.


The case has already been made.

If creationists want to counter it using models and assertions, they will only impress and convince those that do not understand the biology.

Here is why I am very confident that such a large number of beneficial mutations is NOT needed to produce the relatively minor phenotypic changes we see between extant chimps and humans as derived from a common ancestor:

1. These arguments seem to imply that any particular trait is brand new and thus must be accounted for by some large number of mutations. This exposes the multi-level ignorance of those making them.
Look at the generic mammal body type - what specific trait does a human have that, say, a lemur or a dog does not? All human traits are essentially variations on a theme, not brand new. Developmental tweaks are all that is actually needed, not some suite of new beneficial mutations to get, say, the human shoulder joint from an ancestral primate shoulder joint.
There is the case of familial achondroplasia (dwarfism) - a single point mutation causes alterations in limb proportion (to include all muscle/nerve/soft tissue/etc. changes), joints, facial features, etc. All from a single point mutation. I am not saying that this is beneficial or adaptive, I am merely explaining that some huge number of mutations is NOT needed to produce relatively large-scale phenotypic changes. THIS is what your Haldane's dilemma-spewing creationist sources can't or won't understand or mention - usually because THEY don't know this, or because they don't want their target audience to know about it.

2. These arguments imply that some huge number of beneficial mutations MUST HAVE BEEN required for this transition to take place. Given that we know that single point mutations can affect multiple body systems and overall morphology, other than a desire for it to be so, what do these Haldane's dilemma types present that actually supports their position?
I've read ReMine's book - he offers nothing in that regard. I've read more recent treatments of it - more of the same.
I mentioned that a creationist once claimed that just to get the changes in the pelvis for bipedal locomotion a million mutations would have been required. Do you think he provided a million 'changes' that had to have been made? Nope. He could not provide A SINGLE example, but as is is the way of the creationist, he merely insisted that he was correct.


My argument against such claims are 1. that there is no argument (see the Ewen's quote); 2. that the arguments are based on ignorance of developmental biology; 3. that they are premised on the argument from awe (big numbers).


As an aside - I came across a discussion of Haldane on this very forum from 2014 where ReMine himself showed up to pat himself on the back - see, he posted under a false name and ONLY ever posted in that thread. He has a history of doing that.

That has been answered, even though we can say that Haldane was probably wrong in some minor details, or that there are some variables that he didn’t considered, the main fact remains

Even assuming an unrealistically convenient scenario (as the one described before) you can get a maximum of 50,000 mutations, ….. 50,000 is nowhere near enough to explain the difference between chimps and humans.

You need to explain how you determined that 500,000 mutations IS too few. All I see are assertions

.

The actual number is 50,000…. how do we know it is too few?...simple, when looking at samples of orthologs genes between humans and chimps we can note that we share 98% of similarity.

Assuming that this samples represent all the genome (again another generous assumption because it ignores the fact that some genes are exclusive to humans and some are exclusive to chimps) + the fact that genomes are 3B base pairs long, we can conclude that the 2% difference between chimps and humans represents 60,000,000 base pairs. …….therefore 50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and humans

 

[ratiocinator]

It is perfectly valid to say “humans caused pyramids” and “I don’t know what caused humans” just like it is valid to say that an intelligent designer caused the universe and “I don’t know what caused the designer “

Only if you have some good reason to postulate a designer for the universe. We know humans exist and design things, we have a very good, well tested theory for how humans and other complex life arose without any need for a designer. We are left with the universe. A designer for that is nothing more than a wild guess - there is no evidence for one.

The point I was making is that if your only reason for postulating a designer for the universe is to attempt to explain "fine-tuning", it doesn't. It's just a pointless guess.

 

[tas8831]

That has been answered,

By whom? And where? Not you - you ran off after I presented Ewens' quote and the Grant and Flake papers.

even though we can say that Haldane was probably wrong in some minor details, or that there are some variables that he didn’t considered, the main fact remains

Even assuming an unrealistically convenient scenario (as the one described before) you can get a maximum of 50,000 mutations, ….. 50,000 is nowhere near enough to explain the difference between chimps and humans.

And there you go again.
That is not an answer, that is an assertion. A mere claim, based on ignorance and emotion, just like the creationist essay you referred to. Just like ReMine's book.

HOW DO YOU KNOW 50,000 IS TOO FEW????

You don't. You just assert it and expect people to accept that.

…. how do we know it is too few?...simple, when looking at samples of orthologs genes between humans and chimps we can note that we share 98% of similarity.

Assuming that this samples represent all the genome (again another generous assumption because it ignores the fact that some genes are exclusive to humans and some are exclusive to chimps) + the fact that genomes are 3B base pairs long, we can conclude that the 2% difference between chimps and humans represents 60,000,000 base pairs. …….therefore 50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and humans

LOL!!!

So...

Like so many creationists, you do not even grasp the creationist argument re: Haldane's dilemma!

Incredible.....

Let me help you out, as you are clearly in over your head -

Haldane's model was about FIXED, BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS.

NOT total number of mutations. NOT NOT NOT total number of mutations.

Get it?

A 'fixed' mutation is one found in all members of a population.

A beneficial mutation is one that, in a given context, confers an adaptive or reproductive advantage.

So a fixed, beneficial mutation is a mutation that confers an adaptive advantage that ALL members of a population (species) possess.

THAT is what Haldane's model was about.

The TOTAL number of mutational/DNA sequence differences are 100% IRRELEVANT to 'Haldane's dilemma'!

How can you not know this, even as you hawk the failed 'Haldane's dilemma' argument?

Once you acknowledge your blatant error in understanding the actual argument that you presented, we can go on to discuss how and when and who it was that 'addressed' the issues I brought up (nobody has), and I can them further refute this mere assertion:

"….therefore 50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and humans"

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Postulating that Humans created the pyramids gets you now where, you are just moving the problem somewhere else, ¿if humans created the pyramids, then who/what created humans?........you see the point?.... every single explanation opens the door for new questions, this “problem” (assuming that it is a problem) is not exclusive for ID everybody has this same problem.

It is perfectly valid to say “humans caused pyramids” and “I don’t know what caused humans” just like it is valid to say that an intelligent designer caused the universe and “I don’t know what caused the designer “

Yes, humans built the pyramids. We do know where humans come from, other humans having sex, which results in a baby.

What objective evidence do you have that there is a designer? Is your designer a god?

 

[leroy]

By whom? And where? Not you - you ran off after I presented Ewens' quote and the Grant and Flake papers.

And there you go again.
That is not an answer, that is an assertion. A mere claim, based on ignorance and emotion, just like the creationist essay you referred to. Just like ReMine's book.

HOW DO YOU KNOW 50,000 IS TOO FEW????

You don't. You just assert it and expect people to accept that.


LOL!!!

So...

Like so many creationists, you do not even grasp the creationist argument re: Haldane's dilemma!

Incredible.....

Let me help you out, as you are clearly in over your head -

Haldane's model was about FIXED, BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS.

NOT total number of mutations. NOT NOT NOT total number of mutations.

Get it?

A 'fixed' mutation is one found in all members of a population.

A beneficial mutation is one that, in a given context, confers an adaptive or reproductive advantage.

So a fixed, beneficial mutation is a mutation that confers an adaptive advantage that ALL members of a population (species) possess.

THAT is what Haldane's model was about.

The TOTAL number of mutational/DNA sequence differences are 100% IRRELEVANT to 'Haldane's dilemma'!

How can you not know this, even as you hawk the failed 'Haldane's dilemma' argument?

Once you acknowledge your blatant error in understanding the actual argument that you presented, we can go on to discuss how and when and who it was that 'addressed' the issues I brought up (nobody has), and I can them further refute this mere assertion:

"….therefore 50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and humans"

Neutral mutations are not likely to become fixed, genetic drift would remove most neutral mutations.

Only positive mutations have a relatively good chance of getting fixed.

 

[leroy]

Yes, humans built the pyramids. We do know where humans come from, other humans having sex, which results in a baby.

What objective evidence do you have that there is a designer? Is your designer a god?

Don't change the topic....

The Text that you are quoting is meant to show that a particular cause can be established even if there is not an explanation for the origin of the cause... Agree ?

 

[tas8831]

Neutral mutations are not likely to become fixed, genetic drift would remove most neutral mutations.

Wow, your amazing insights and expertise continue to impress me...

(equations may not paste accurately):

Under conditions of genetic drift alone, every finite set of genes or alleles has a "coalescent point" at which all descendants converge to a single ancestor (i.e. they 'coalesce'). This fact can be used to derive the rate of gene fixation of a neutral allele (that is, one not under any form of selection) for a population of varying size (provided that it is finite and nonzero). Because the effect of natural selection is stipulated to be negligible, the probability at any given time that an allele will ultimately become fixed at its locus is simply its frequency p {\displaystyle p}

in the population at that time. For example, if a population includes allele A with frequency equal to 20%, and allele a with frequency equal to 80%, there is an 80% chance that after an infinite number of generations a will be fixed at the locus (assuming genetic drift is the only operating evolutionary force).

For a diploid population of size N and neutral mutation rate μ {\displaystyle \mu }

, the initial frequency of a novel mutation is simply 1/(2N), and the number of new mutations per generation is 2 N μ {\displaystyle 2N\mu }

. Since the fixation rate is the rate of novel neutral mutation multiplied by their probability of fixation, the overall fixation rate is 2 N μ × 1 2 N = μ {\displaystyle 2N\mu \times {\frac {1}{2N}}=\mu }

. Thus, the rate of fixation for a mutation not subject to selection is simply the rate of introduction of such mutations.[5][6]​

Only positive mutations have a relatively good chance of getting fixed.

Learn that from creation.com, did you?

OK, great - now I note that you ignored nearly all of my post:

Like so many creationists, you do not even grasp the creationist argument re: Haldane's dilemma!

Incredible.....

Let me help you out, as you are clearly in over your head -

Haldane's model was about FIXED, BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS.

NOT total number of mutations. NOT NOT NOT total number of mutations.

Get it?

A 'fixed' mutation is one found in all members of a population.

A beneficial mutation is one that, in a given context, confers an adaptive or reproductive advantage.

So a fixed, beneficial mutation is a mutation that confers an adaptive advantage that ALL members of a population (species) possess.

THAT is what Haldane's model was about.

The TOTAL number of mutational/DNA sequence differences are 100% IRRELEVANT to 'Haldane's dilemma'!

How can you not know this, even as you hawk the failed 'Haldane's dilemma' argument?

Once you acknowledge your blatant error in understanding the actual argument that you presented, we can go on to discuss how and when and who it was that 'addressed' the issues I brought up (nobody has), and I can them further refute this mere assertion:

"….therefore 50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and humans"

 

[leroy]

Only if you have some good reason to postulate a designer for the universe. We know humans exist and design things, we have a very good, well tested theory for how humans and other complex life arose without any need for a designer. We are left with the universe. A designer for that is nothing more than a wild guess - there is no evidence for one.

The point I was making is that if your only reason for postulating a designer for the universe is to attempt to explain "fine-tuning", it doesn't. It's just a pointless guess.

In fact my claim is that ID is the best explanation for the FT of the universe, . there are many other naturalistic alternative explanations (Anthropic principle, multiverse, top down cosmology, the universe evolve to make black holes, etc.) feel free to select your favorite and explain why is it better than design.

 

[ratiocinator]

In fact my claim is that ID is the best explanation for the FT of the universe, . there are many other naturalistic alternative explanations (Anthropic principle, multiverse, top down cosmology, the universe evolve to make black holes, etc.) feel free to select your favorite and explain why is it better than design.

We don't know yet is the accurate answer. Anything that is based on an extrapolation of what is known (most multiverse ideas, for example) is better than design because a designer is a nothing but a blind guess.

 

[leroy]

Wow, your amazing insights and expertise continue to impress me...

(equations may not paste accurately):

Under conditions of genetic drift alone, every finite set of genes or alleles has a "coalescent point" at which all descendants converge to a single ancestor (i.e. they 'coalesce'). This fact can be used to derive the rate of gene fixation of a neutral allele (that is, one not under any form of selection) for a population of varying size (provided that it is finite and nonzero). Because the effect of natural selection is stipulated to be negligible, the probability at any given time that an allele will ultimately become fixed at its locus is simply its frequency p {\displaystyle p}

in the population at that time. For example, if a population includes allele A with frequency equal to 20%, and allele a with frequency equal to 80%, there is an 80% chance that after an infinite number of generations a will be fixed at the locus (assuming genetic drift is the only operating evolutionary force).

​

​

Wow, your amazing insights and expertise continue to impress me...

(equations may not paste accurately):

Under conditions of genetic drift alone, every finite set of genes or alleles has a "coalescent point" at which all descendants converge to a single ancestor (i.e. they 'coalesce'). This fact can be used to derive the rate of gene fixation of a neutral allele (that is, one not under any form of selection) for a population of varying size (provided that it is finite and nonzero). Because the effect of natural selection is stipulated to be negligible, the probability at any given time that an allele will ultimately become fixed at its locus is simply its frequency p {\displaystyle p}

in the population at that time. For example, if a population includes allele A with frequency equal to 20%, and allele a with frequency equal to 80%, there is an 80% chance that after an infinite number of generations a will be fixed at the locus (assuming genetic drift is the only operating evolutionary force).

For a diploid population of size N and neutral mutation rate μ {\displaystyle \mu }

, the initial frequency of a novel mutation is simply 1/(2N), and the number of new mutations per generation is 2 N μ {\displaystyle 2N\mu }

. Since the fixation rate is the rate of novel neutral mutation multiplied by their probability of fixation, the overall fixation rate is 2 N μ × 1 2 N = μ {\displaystyle 2N\mu \times {\frac {1}{2N}}=\mu }

. Thus, the rate of fixation for a mutation not subject to selection is simply the rate of introduction of such mutations.[5][6]​

Learn that from creation.com, did you?

OK, great - now I note that you ignored nearly all of my post:

Like so many creationists, you do not even grasp the creationist argument re: Haldane's dilemma!

Incredible.....

Let me help you out, as you are clearly in over your head -

Haldane's model was about FIXED, BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS.

NOT total number of mutations. NOT NOT NOT total number of mutations.

Get it?

A 'fixed' mutation is one found in all members of a population.

A beneficial mutation is one that, in a given context, confers an adaptive or reproductive advantage.

So a fixed, beneficial mutation is a mutation that confers an adaptive advantage that ALL members of a population (species) possess.

THAT is what Haldane's model was about.

The TOTAL number of mutational/DNA sequence differences are 100% IRRELEVANT to 'Haldane's dilemma'!

How can you not know this, even as you hawk the failed 'Haldane's dilemma' argument?

Once you acknowledge your blatant error in understanding the actual argument that you presented, we can go on to discuss how and when and who it was that 'addressed' the issues I brought up (nobody has), and I can them further refute this mere assertion:

"….therefore 50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and humans"

Learn that from creation.com, did you?

OK, great - now I note that you ignored nearly all of my post:

Like so many creationists, you do not even grasp the creationist argument re: Haldane's dilemma!

Incredible.....

Let me help you out, as you are clearly in over your head -

Haldane's model was about FIXED, BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS.

NOT total number of mutations. NOT NOT NOT total number of mutations.

Get it?

A 'fixed' mutation is one found in all members of a population.

A beneficial mutation is one that, in a given context, confers an adaptive or reproductive advantage.

So a fixed, beneficial mutation is a mutation that confers an adaptive advantage that ALL members of a population (species) possess.

THAT is what Haldane's model was about.

The TOTAL number of mutational/DNA sequence differences are 100% IRRELEVANT to 'Haldane's dilemma'!

How can you not know this, even as you hawk the failed 'Haldane's dilemma' argument?

Once you acknowledge your blatant error in understanding the actual argument that you presented, we can go on to discuss how and when and who it was that 'addressed' the issues I brought up (nobody has), and I can them further refute this mere assertion:

"….therefore 50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and humans"[/QUOTE]


Ok so how big was the “ancestral primate population”? 100 individuals on average?........if some guy gets a neural mutation, the there would be a 1% probability of fixtiation……..i(in fact 0.5% because we are talking about diploid populations)

Since neutral mutations are unlikely to become fixed, most of the differences between chimps and humans are beneficial (ofourse I am assuming that you are a “selectionists” if you where a “neutralist”, then this argument would not apply)

therefore 50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and humans

ok, so refute this assertion, or are you going to find excuses for not supporting it?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Don't change the topic....

The Text that you are quoting is meant to show that a particular cause can be established even if there is not an explanation for the origin of the cause... Agree ?

Not changing the topic, just stating the obvious facts.

 

[tas8831]

Ok so how big was the “ancestral primate population”?

Don't YOU have to know that in order to make your claims?
Don't YOU need to know which traits they exhibited to judge the amount of change needed?

100 individuals on average?........if some guy gets a neural mutation, the there would be a 1% probability of fixtiation……..i(in fact 0.5% because we are talking about diploid populations)

Why the dodging and tangents?

Is this your way of admitting that you simply paraphrased and parroted the baseless claims you see on this issue on creationist websites, assuming them to be meaningful and accurate?

Since neutral mutations are unlikely to become fixed, most of the differences between chimps and humans are beneficial (ofourse I am assuming that you are a “selectionists” if you where a “neutralist”, then this argument would not apply)

Um... Your arguments make exactly zero sense... I will expand after I come back from brainwashing students in my evolution class...

ok, so refute this assertion, or are you going to find excuses for not supporting it?

Dodging and disingenuous, as I have come to expect - cool burden shifting there, too.

Why did you repeat "Since neutral mutations are unlikely to become fixed"?

And why did you not admit your major errors?


Like so many creationists, you do not even grasp the creationist argument re: Haldane's dilemma!

Incredible.....

Let me help you out, as you are clearly in over your head -

Haldane's model was about FIXED, BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS.

NOT total number of mutations. NOT NOT NOT total number of mutations.

Get it?

A 'fixed' mutation is one found in all members of a population.

A beneficial mutation is one that, in a given context, confers an adaptive or reproductive advantage.

So a fixed, beneficial mutation is a mutation that confers an adaptive advantage that ALL members of a population (species) possess.

THAT is what Haldane's model was about.

The TOTAL number of mutational/DNA sequence differences are 100% IRRELEVANT to 'Haldane's dilemma'!

How can you not know this, even as you hawk the failed 'Haldane's dilemma' argument?

Once you acknowledge your blatant error in understanding the actual argument that you presented, we can go on to discuss how and when and who it was that 'addressed' the issues I brought up (nobody has), and I can them further refute this mere assertion:

"….therefore 50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and humans"


And remember that last thing is YOUR claim, not mine, so YOU need to justify your repetitious mantra.[/quote]

 

[shunyadragon]

What does scientists say then? If they dont say God made it, or nothing, or that it always existed, nor that we're just here and we don't know why, then what does science say?

Science is neutral either way. It is up to the individual scientist to determine their own belief, theology and philosophy.

Heart, lungs, brain, intestines? Its like asking the classic question, what came first the chicken or egg.

In evolution it;s through the population that evolution takes place. The eggs come first with slight variations in the gens of the offspring over time.

All parts need to be in place at the same time. Each part cant evolve one part at a time over long periods otherwise the whole thing will die before it gets off the ground.

No, in evolution over time, millions of years, the individual that are defective just simply do not make the cut.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do you think the "Church fathers have any special knowledge on the subject"? They were men just as you and I are with no special knowledge except that they were closer in time to what Jesus said.

The 'Church Fathers' are the closest documented writings and testimony we can get to the historical gospels, the life of Christ, and the Apostles. The gospels were originally anonymous, and the evidence indicates they were redacted, edited and compiled after 50 AD to be in their present form, during the lives of the early 'Church Fathers,' who were likely involved. They believed as the gospels indicate the story of Adam and Eve, and Noah and the flood were literal historical accounts.

The early Church Fathers most likely knew some of the Apostles and Paul.

The progressive 'mesh' editing of the synoptic gospels is evidence that the early 'Church Fathers' had a hand in it.

 

[tas8831]

Now where was I...

Since neutral mutations are unlikely to become fixed,

Their probability of fixation equals their starting frequency.

most of the differences between chimps and humans are beneficial

How do you know this? HOW MANY?

Isn't THAT the question?

It is, IF and ONLY IF you actually understand the creationist 'Haldane's dilemma' argument - and are YOU not the one presenting that argument on this forum? Yes, yes you are.

As I explained, Haldane's model is about FIXED, BENEFICIAL mutations, not ALL mutations.

The creationist argument regarding Haldane's model is that the number of FIXED, BENEFICIAL (NOT neutral) mutations 'allowed' is asserted to be "too few" to account for human evolution from an ape-like ancestor.

THAT is your argument, so why you are yammering on about neutral mutations can only be seen as either the result of you not knowing what your own argument is about, or an attempt to muddy the water so you will not have to admit that your argument is a house of cards.

I think the main problem is thinking Don Batten knows what the heck he is talking about, for HE confuses and misrepresents the whole thing:

Imagine a population of 100,000 apes, the putative progenitors of humans. Suppose that a male and a female both received a mutation so beneficial that they out-survived everyone else; all the rest of the population died out—all 99,998 of them. And then the surviving pair had enough offspring to replenish the population in one generation. And this repeated every generation (every 20 years) for 10 million years, more than the supposed time since the last common ancestor of humans and apes. That would mean that 500,000 beneficial mutations could be added to the population (i.e., 10,000,000/20). Even with this completely unrealistic scenario, which maximizes evolutionary progress, only about 0.02% of the human genome could be generated. Considering that the difference between the DNA of a human and a chimp, our supposed closest living relative, is greater than 5%,Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more. Journal of Creation 17(1):8–10, 2003.">2 evolution has an obvious problem in explaining the origin of the genetic information in a creature such as a human.​

This block head thinks that Haldane's model is about "creating" an entire genome!! That, or he is lying to his target audience, who will almost certainly not know any better and find this a totally awesome argument.

And you fell for it.

(ofourse I am assuming that you are a “selectionists” if you where a “neutralist”, then this argument would not apply)

That argument does not apply because it is stupid and misrepresents pretty much everything about Haldane's model AND evolution in general.

ok, so refute this assertion, or are you going to find excuses for not supporting it?

First - this is HILARIOUS! You want me to "refute" this:

"….therefore 50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and humans"

which is YOUR unsupported and frankly ridiculous assertion, lest I be considered to have sought an excuse for not supporting it.

As I have already outlined (and you either did not understand or ignored for "plausible deniability" purposes), I do not think some gigantic number of mutations (beneficial or otherwise) are "required" to explain human traits evolved from an ape-like ancestor for the following reasons:

1. There really no 'brand new' traits that humans possess that chimps do not, indicating that our common ancestor also that the same basic traits
2. Therefore, we only need to "tweak" existing traits, and tweaking an existing trait does NOT require some large number of beneficial mutations
3. Support for this - point mutation in the FGFR-3 gene causing achondroplasia - altered limb-to-trunk proportion, altered facial characteristics, reduced joints, etc. All from one mutation. Reminder - I am NOT presenting this as a beneficial mutation, just the reality that MULTIPLE phenotypic traits can be altered, in this case, by a single mutation.

I predict that it will be possible, at some point, to map out specific mutations that resulted in specific phenotypes. We are not there now. But at least I have a foundationally-supported position with an example.

You have mere assertions premised on someone else's mere assertions based on someone else's mere assertions, who premised those assertions on personal incredulity, ignorance, and a desire to sway the under-informed to a creationist viewpoint by arguing with numbers.

Now YOU provide the evidence-based rationale for YOUR position, that "50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and humans" - and to be specific, this has to be 'fixed, beneficial mutations', because THAT is what Haldane's model and the creationist argument based on that is actually about.

In order for you to make your position valid, you must, at least:

1. Pick a trait that you think is so special in us
2. Identify the ancestral version of it
3. explain how many fixed beneficial mutations would have been required for that transition
4. explain how you know this, with at least a real-life "model" as I presented

OR

You could just admit that you were taken in by Don Batten's distorted misrepresentation of Haldane's model (it is NOT about 'building' a genome!) and ran with it without understanding the premise.

Your move.

And just to reiterate:

Like so many creationists, you do not even grasp the creationist argument re: Haldane's dilemma!

Incredible.....

Let me help you out, as you are clearly in over your head -

Haldane's model was about FIXED, BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS.

NOT total number of mutations. NOT NOT NOT total number of mutations.

Get it?

A 'fixed' mutation is one found in all members of a population.

A beneficial mutation is one that, in a given context, confers an adaptive or reproductive advantage.

So a fixed, beneficial mutation is a mutation that confers an adaptive advantage that ALL members of a population (species) possess.

THAT is what Haldane's model was about.

The TOTAL number of mutational/DNA sequence differences are 100% IRRELEVANT to 'Haldane's dilemma'!

How can you not know this, even as you hawk the failed 'Haldane's dilemma' argument?

Once you acknowledge your blatant error in understanding the actual argument that you presented, we can go on to discuss how and when and who it was that 'addressed' the issues I brought up (nobody has), and I can them further refute this mere assertion:

"….therefore 50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and humans"