Why evolution did not comes like this ?

[dust1n]

....if you can't calculate the chance of mutations.....then the suspect says to the judge you can't calculate the chance that somebody else has the same DNA as me...somebody else could have mutations exactly same as me...therefore you cannot exclude the possibility somebody else has the same DNA as me... therefore the evidence is inconclusive..and the suspect is let go

All evolutionists I ever talked to cannot reason. They are all political party ideologues repeating the standard party line.

How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics:

http://educ.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/sewell.pdf

The researchers, Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator Phil Green and his student Dick Hwang, published a description of their new analytical approach and an initial application August 3, 2004, in the online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Both are at the University of Washington in Seattle.

"Understanding naturally occurring mutations has been of great interest because mutations are major drivers of evolution," said Green. "However, it's surprising how little is still known about their causes."

Previous studies have revealed a number of biases in the rates of different types of mutational change. These arise in part from the innate biochemical characteristics of the four DNA nucleotide units – adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine – that affect their vulnerability to modification and the accuracy with which they are replicated when cells divide. Particular nucleotide sequences, for example cytosine-guanine (CpG) dinucleotides, form "hotspots" – regions that are particularly vulnerable to alterations that convert one nucleotide to another, causing mutations.

To understand these biases, Hwang and Green sought to develop a flexible approach to analyze the process of "neutral DNA evolution," in regions thought to lack genes and other functionally important sequences. "If you want to get an unvarnished picture of the mutation process itself, uncorrupted by natural selection, you want to look at neutrally evolving DNA," said Green. "Mutations in DNA that is not functional should better represent the complete spectrum of naturally occurring mutations. Mutations are of course also occurring in the genes and those are of interest because they can create new phenotypes and cause variation among traits. Some of those mutations are advantageous and consequently quickly spread through the species, while others are deleterious and are weeded out. So genes and other features don't evolve at neutral rates."

Bad Luck of Random Mutations Plays Predominant Role in Cancer, Study Shows - 01/01/2015


More stuff

New mathematics research proves there's plenty of time for evolution

 

[David M]

The contention is that randomness of mutations provides for more neutral and deleterious mutations than beneficial, and that natural selection in theory cannot keep up with weeding out deleterious and neutral mutations.

That is your contention, and you have provided no references to any evidence that this is correct (and don't use Sanford's silly program as its been demolished already).

 

[David M]

Why don't you read the postings you are responding to?

Why won't you ever answer questions, define your terms or provide evidence to support your claims?

 

[Bunyip]

Why won't you ever answer questions, define your terms or provide evidence to support your claims?

Is that a rhetorical question?

 

[Etritonakin]

You don't listen, and you don't understand. In common discourse you would say it is a fact that a decision is made, but it is opinion what emotions are in somebody's heart that makes the decision turn out the way it does.

At no point have I said science could prove God exists. Science can prove how things are chosen. What the agency of any decision is, be it God or the devil, it is categorically a matter of opinion.Having a category for matters opinion, validates subjectivity.

Again, why don't you support science about how things are chosen?

If you accept as fact that freedom is real, then...why don't just do normal science about it?

Honestly... I do listen, but have difficulty understanding your point. I am trying. I am not familiar with how you say things, so I have difficulty answering.

 

[Etritonakin]

I agree entirely.....

Well, I do have to accept evolution as a capable designer, but having a genetic disease and all, it's difficult to be too happy at the moment. But undoubtedly our knowledge over last 60/70 years has contributed significantly to medicine and will continue to do so.

So, lucky timing and place to live considering. =)..................

Absolutely.................

Sorry to hear that.

Our firsthand experience of things is often less than happy.

I do not actually see evolution as a designer, but part of an overall design process by a designer.

From the perspective of my beliefs...... (sorry in advance for possibly jumping wildly from one idea to another)....

we see how things could possibly be made perfect -but experience imperfection temporarily for a purpose -by design, if you will.

It is not that imperfection was the intended state of our bodies, but came to pass due to a lack of understanding/access to knowledge, etc. of ourselves and environment or the means to maintain the intended state -the purpose for which it was allowed being the cultivation of a desire to choose the "tree of life", and the eventual eradication of any desire to choose otherwise (eradication of ignorance by experience when instruction was insufficient).

We are not merely subject to that which caused us to be, but the same can be somewhat subject to us because we understand it somewhat at present, and are able to alter it.

If genes can be considered to have an ideal state -without disease -then we can consider how disease -even death -might be completely eradicated and prevented. Such would require a perfect overall system and maintenance thereof.

Rather than believing accidental evolution eventually produced humans, I believe that there is an ideal intended human genetic state, if you will (even if achieved by a step-by-step process initially), and that the things which happened after being cut off from the tree of life affected the maintenance thereof (God being capable of maintaining it, instructing us in correct ways and allowing access to vast amounts of knowledge -and man, without God, being subject to whatever then came to pass -though the general limitation of lifespan was set by decision [it is conceivable that the human body need not die of itself if certain things were altered])

So -while the temporary body is subject to circumstance and the collective effects of decisions -and is adversely affected, eventually passing, the mind (at least the software) becomes more perfect by noting what is lacking and is motivated to seek, create and maintain perfection.

If such minds were to then inhabit bodies which were not so subject to imperfection and which allowed a more powerful and direct interface, all could then learn to create without conflict, be mindful of maintaining that which maintains their well-being, and would have the ability to do so. Acknowledging and being willingly subject to the perfect government of God which indeed exists would allow that maintenance.

Personally, I see the fact that humans pass away just when they begin to get the general idea of how to live as an indication of a greater future.

 

[dust1n]

So -while the temporary body is subject to circumstance and the collective effects of decisions -and is adversely affected, eventually passing, the mind (at least the software) becomes more perfect by noting what is lacking and is motivated to seek, create and maintain perfection.

If such minds were to then inhabit bodies which were not so subject to imperfection and which allowed a more powerful and direct interface, all could then learn to create without conflict, be mindful of maintaining that which maintains their well-being, and would have the ability to do so. Acknowledging and being willingly subject to the perfect government of God which indeed exists would allow that maintenance.

Well, if it must be that way, let it be so then. I was going to donate my body to science anyway. If it couldn't make things perfect instantly, it was still nice he tried and did pretty darn job at it, and maybe it's learning from mistakes all the time.

That's not a bad conception at all.

 

[Bunyip]

Sorry to hear that.

Our firsthand experience of things is often less than happy.

I do not actually see evolution as a designer, but part of an overall design process by a designer.

From the perspective of my beliefs...... (sorry in advance for possibly jumping wildly from one idea to another)....

we see how things could possibly be made perfect -but experience imperfection temporarily for a purpose -by design, if you will.

It is not that imperfection was the intended state of our bodies, but came to pass due to a lack of understanding/access to knowledge, etc. of ourselves and environment or the means to maintain the intended state -the purpose for which it was allowed being the cultivation of a desire to choose the "tree of life", and the eventual eradication of any desire to choose otherwise.

We are not merely subject to that which caused us to be, but the same can be somewhat subject to us because we understand it somewhat at present, and are able to alter it.

If genes can be considered to have an ideal state -without disease -then we can consider how disease -even death -might be completely eradicated and prevented. Such would require a perfect overall system and maintenance thereof.

Rather than believing accidental evolution eventually produced humans, I believe that there is an ideal intended human genetic state, if you will (even if achieved by a step-by-step process initially), and that the things which happened after being cut off from the tree of life affected the maintenance thereof (God being capable of maintaining it, instructing us in correct ways and allowing access to vast amounts of knowledge -and man, without God, being subject to whatever then came to pass -though the general limitation of lifespan was set by decision [it is conceivable that the human body need not die of itself if certain things were altered])

So -while the temporary body is subject to circumstance and the collective effects of decisions -and is adversely affected, eventually passing, the mind (at least the software) becomes more perfect by noting what is lacking and is motivated to seek, create and maintain perfection.

If such minds were to then inhabit bodies which were not so subject to imperfection and which allowed a more powerful and direct interface, all could then learn to create without conflict, be mindful of maintaining that which maintains their well-being, and would have the ability to do so. Acknowledging and being willingly subject to the perfect government of God which indeed exists would allow that maintenance.

Personally, I see the fact that humans pass away just when they begin to get the general idea of how to live as an indication of a greater future.

One of the most important and basic concepts you need to grasp in order to understand evolution is that it is not accidental as you appear to imagine.

 

[Etritonakin]

Well, if it must be that way, let it be so then. I was going to donate my body to science anyway. If it couldn't make things perfect instantly, it was still nice he tried and did pretty darn job at it, and maybe it's learning from mistakes all the time.

That's not a bad conception at all.

If you meant God by "he", then I'd say that he could make your individual body perfect instantly, but he could not make "you" perfect instantly.

Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

 

[Etritonakin]

One of the most important and basic concepts you need to grasp in order to understand evolution is that it is not accidental as you appear to imagine.

Evolution is believed by some to have begun without planning or forethought -and has been described as a "fortunate accident".

I do not believe this is the case, but I would be interested in an explanation of your statement (which I would consider later, as my brain is presently frazzled).

 

[Bunyip]

Evolution is believed by some to have begun without planning or forethought -and has been described as a "fortunate accident".

I do not believe this is the case, but I would be interested in an explanation of your statement (which I would consider later, as my brain is presently frazzled).

Evolution is driven by environmental feedback, natural selection. That is why it is not random accident. This is about the most fundamental concept behind the theory. To believe evolution is accident is to demonstrate that you do not actually know what 'evolution' means.

You can not know what evolution means and at the same time think it is accident.

 

[dust1n]

If you meant God by "he", then I'd say that he could make your individual body perfect instantly, but he could not make "you" perfect instantly.

Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Hmm, I don't need bodily perfection. But a cure would be nice. Luckily though, cures will be about the next decade or so.

 

[columbus]

Evolution is believed by some to have begun without planning or forethought

You appear to be confusing the beginning of life on earth with the later "Origin of Species".
They are not the same thing and evolution has nothing to do with the former.
Tom

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Honestly... I do listen, but have difficulty understanding your point. I am trying. I am not familiar with how you say things, so I have difficulty answering.

Simply a fact about a decision made would describe the available options, and the way the decision turned out. You can make pretty sophisticated science with that, and for instance describe how organisms are decided to be the way they are.

And besides science, you should know that the question what it is that makes any decision turn out the way it does, also called agency, is categorically a matter of opinion. There religion and subjectivity generally applies. With opinions you reach the conclusion by expression of emotion, with free will, thus choosing the answer. For example, a painting is beautiful or ugly, either conclusion is logically valid. Unlike with facts, where the conclusion is derived by evidence forcing to a model / copy of what is evidenced, for example you can have an accurate description of the moon in a book.

This validation of subjectivity is what the creation vs evolution controversy is really all about. The facts about how things are decided is worthwhile science, however lack of acceptance of subjectivity ruins people, so that is a vastly more important issue.

 

[Godobeyer]

I'm betting it will happen in our lifetime. These things are dependent on technology advancing.

Researchers Create the World's First Fully Synthetic, Self-Replicating Living Cell | Popular Science

did the scientists succed to make a living cell from Bacteria ?

So the human science could not making self-living cell , yet .

who had that science which let firs self-replicating cell before 3.5 millions of years ?


let's suppose that your betting get right :
i mean , let's suppose that scientists succed to creat living cell , lived for 1 hour or one day or one year , then what , could they suceed to program it to reproduce and creat body ?

 

[LuisDantas]

did the scientists succed to make a living cell from Bacteria ?

Bacteria already are living cells.

Do you mean to ask whether they have been observed originating multicellular organisms, perhaps?

I don't think so, but one must take into account how incredibly difficult it is to happen upon such an event.

Logically, it should be impressively rare, yet also likely to happen during the timescales and widths of field we are talking about.

So the human science could not making self-living cell , yet .

Cell making in laboratory is very commonplace these days, and has been for several decades.

Not as abiogenesis, of course, and maybe that is what you meant to ask.

who had that science which let firs self-replicating cell before 3.5 millions of years ?

I am having trouble with this sentence, but I will guess that you are asking whether something that can't be demonstrated in laboratory today would be likely to have happened long ago.

The answer is yes. A lot of impressive, significant things are indeed likely to have happened 3.5 million years ago, many of those biological in nature.

Having millions or even billions of years and a whole planet of chaotic biomass to work with is a huge advantage in the "making things happen" department, as is to be expected.

let's suppose that your betting get right :
i mean , let's suppose that scientists succed to creat living cell , lived for 1 hour or one day or one year , then what , could they suceed to program it to reproduce and creat body ?

You seem to be asking whether cloning is possible. It is indeed. Even relatively complex lifeforms have been cloned since 1996 at least.

Dolly (sheep) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[leibowde84]

Indeed that tends to prove the theory, however all organisms need to be extinct for your theory to be found valid. The model predicts extinction of all, due to ns not keeping up with random mutations.

That would only be the case if Natural Selection dictated that detrimental mutations led to death or the inability to procreate, which just isn't the case. There are many neutral mutations as well.

 

[leibowde84]

Indeed that tends to prove the theory, however all organisms need to be extinct for your theory to be found valid. The model predicts extinction of all, due to ns not keeping up with random mutations.

And, just to be clear, at least 98% of species have gone extinct in the past 3.5 billion years.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That would only be the case if Natural Selection dictated that detrimental mutations led to death or the inability to procreate, which just isn't the case. There are many neutral mutations as well.

...you need the mutations to be many, so that you get new things to select, and get a new specie. But then many mutations mean lots of corruption. The model doesn't work out.

 

[Valjean]

Evolution is believed by some to have begun without planning or forethought -and has been described as a "fortunate accident".

I don't follow. What does beginning have to do with it?
Abiogenesis, evolution and the theory of evolution are all different things. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

I do not believe this is the case, but I would be interested in an explanation of your statement (which I would consider later, as my brain is presently frazzled).

Please clarify: what don't you believe to be the case (sorry if I'm being dense).