Proof of Creationism! Refute This!

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Microscopictopic

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Microscopictopic
reply to post by randyvs
 


Randy if they would do the math they would realize that the time they have told us that the universe has existed does not give their theory of evolution enough time to justify their claims.


By all means. Please post the evidence behind this claim. What math are you referring to? Why is there not enough time for evolution when we've seen it happen in multiple scenarios? Show me the proof.
edit on 18-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Okay. 6 billion Dna that they search. Mutated Dna between generations. What would you say the rate would be. Lets go with 100. Probably lower, but we will use 100. 100 is what percent of 6 billion? Lets say .000000166667% Now a generation is generally labeled what....25 years? Now. How many years would it take for our dna to go from amino acids to what we are today? From this perspective it would take 150 million years to change one percent of our human dna. Cut the number of Dna in half double the number of years and well it is just doesn't add up to a logical assessment.


The current assessment is that mtDNA accumulates one mutation every 20,000 years. You do the math.




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


supply me with :

1 horse
1 chainsaw
1 letter granting me immunity from prosecution

and i will gladdly show you a horse with no back



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





The assumptions upon which you base your math are a bit off.


Maybe




Actually you're a little low on the number of mutations from generation to generation in humans. The average is closer to 150 distinct differences between a child and its parents. You go on to make a very common mistake here -- you're treating the process as a single lineage mutating from generation to generation. You're not taking into account population size. So while you're saying that only 1.7E-6 of our DNA is changing, you're forgetting that there are 7B people on the face of the Earth, so that's 105B mutations to select from at a given moment in our species alone.



Text

Figuring this out was not an easy process. They had to look at the over 6 billion letters of DNA for each person over and over again (22 times!) to rule out any technical mistakes. Then they had to figure out which changes happened between generations and which just happened in some of the child's cells or for technical lab reasons.


Sorry I left out "letters of".
Actually they have found that mutations are slower than they believed. They need to do more studies to be conclusive, but with the studies they have done it is slower.


The most recent study puts the number of new mutations somewhere between 30 and 50. Previous estimates had been around 100-200 new DNA changes per generation.





In our species, yes. In other organisms? Hardly. It's why we're able to observe evolution occurring both in the lab and in nature. E. coli, for example, can go through 5k generations in a year. And even in the case of a longer generational span in a species like ours, all it takes is a little bit of genetic bottleneck for a change to spread throughout a population. We're actually hindering our evolution as a species by having effectively no isolation of populations and by overcoming traits that wouldn't be selected for in the wild.


I was actually just seeing for humans, but I would agree that other things that could change faster.




Given the above, it's obviously not as long as you had originally calculated.


I would disagree.

www.thetech.org...



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Microscopictopic
Okay. 6 billion Dna that they search.

No. Three billion base-pairs in haploid human genome. Six billion base-pairs in diploid human genome.



Mutated Dna between generations. What would you say the rate would be. Lets go with 100. Probably lower, but we will use 100. 100 is what percent of 6 billion? Lets say .000000166667%

There's no constant rate for mutations (you're actually talking only about insertions) within genomes. It depends on so many factors, including loci, DNA polymerase structure, AT-content, etc.



Now a generation is generally labeled what....25 years? Now. How many years would it take for our dna to go from amino acids to what we are today? From this perspective it would take 150 million years to change one percent of our human dna. Cut the number of Dna in half double the number of years and well it is just doesn't add up to a logical assessment.

25 years might be a good estimate for contemporary humans. You think the generation time was 25 years also way back when our ancestors were still single celled organisms?

Also



How many years would it take for our dna to go from amino acids to what we are today?

Maybe you shouldn't be discussing genetics since you lack even the most elementary knowledge taught (at least in my country) in primary school. You know, the super simplified from DNA to RNA to Protein thing..
edit on 19-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


They look like the boneless chickens you find in the supermarket.

Next line



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


See my last post

for the info you seek.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Microscopictopic
 

See my last post. Especially the part about generation times.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Microscopictopic
 


Actually they have found that mutations are slower than they believed. They need to do more studies to be conclusive, but with the studies they have done it is slower.

The most recent study puts the number of new mutations somewhere between 30 and 50. Previous estimates had been around 100-200 new DNA changes per generation.

This doesn't change the fact that your model is incorrect -- the way you're trying to calculate the rate is for a single lineage. You're still not taking into account the overall population of humans on this planet at a given moment. Take the estimate of 30 - 50 mutations from the article you linked instead of the 150 number I had read. That's still per individual, or 280B mutations at a given moment to select from at a given moment. Sorry that my math was off earlier, I forgot that you were working in % of our genome that is different from either of our parents; my number of mutations using the 150 per human per generation number should have been 1.05T to be selected from.


I was actually just seeing for humans, but I would agree that other things that could change faster.

But that's exactly the point -- our ancestors would have evolved faster than we are today as they went through more generations in a shorter timeframe.


I would disagree.

www.thetech.org...

You are entitled to do so. But the article you linked doesn't support your claim that there wasn't enough time for us to have evolved. All that article does is place our common ancestor with chimpanzees 2M years earlier than was believed through the genetic evidence alone, even though the fossil evidence said otherwise:


Previous results suggested that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor around 5 million years ago. Using the new numbers, it looks like 7 million is a more likely number. This second number is actually consistent with more recent fossil evidence. But it isn't set in stone either.

I don't see any statements to the effect that there wasn't enough time for us to evolve here.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   


This doesn't change the fact that your model is incorrect -- the way you're trying to calculate the rate is for a single lineage. You're still not taking into account the overall population of humans on this planet at a given moment. Take the estimate of 30 - 50 mutations from the article you linked instead of the 150 number I had read. That's still per individual, or 280B mutations at a given moment to select from at a given moment. Sorry that my math was off earlier, I forgot that you were working in % of our genome that is different from either of our parents; my number of mutations using the 150 per human per generation number should have been 1.05T to be selected from.
reply to post by iterationzero
 



I would say per individual it would come up to be approximately 52.5 mutations. When they do more tests of different families who really knows what the average will be, but by percentage it will make it easier to trace how fast evolution is. As far as the overall population, if you are using the numbers of all of the mutations of the earth, then you would have to add all of their Dna to the equation also.




But that's exactly the point -- our ancestors would have evolved faster than we are today as they went through more generations in a shorter timeframe.


Shorter time frame? Please reference source for this knowledge.




But the article you linked doesn't support your claim that there wasn't enough time for us to have evolved. All that article does is place our common ancestor with chimpanzees 2M years earlier than was believed through the genetic evidence alone, even though the fossil evidence said otherwise:



I used the article because of the numbers that was used. Then using percentages I made my case. Actually the article said that the fossil evidence supported the 7 M year theory.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Microscopictopic

Shorter time frame? Please reference source for this knowledge.


www.cdc.gov...

Before the last century, most girls had their first child in their mid-teens and the average number of pregnancies was 10-12.. There's a reason girls are sexually mature at 10-13, with boys a little older, and there's a reason why the teen years are all raging hormones. You don't erase 5 million years of evolution that quickly. The average life expectancy was barely 25 years old, and until the 1940's most women didn't live long enough to go through menopause.

If you're a girl, the best age physically to have a child is 17. You will never again be as healthy and fertile as you are then. Our fertility starts dropping exponentially at 25--again, that was the average life expectancy not long ago and there's no reason to remain fertile if you're not going to live long enough to use it. Conversely, as we live much longer now, the average age of menopause is increasing.

Organisms live long enough to breed and pass on their genes. That is why we start to go downhill after menopause and the male equivalent. (Men's sperm starts to decrease in number and quality after age 40. An older man has a much greater chance of his children having problems like autism and schizophrenia, just like an older woman has a much greater chance of a child with Down's syndrome and other issues.)

According to the link I posted, in 1970 the average age for a first child was 21. In 2000, that was up to 24.9 and in 2003 it was 25.2. The number of women waiting till age 35+ increased eightfold, when not long ago that was not possible. In Switzerland, the average age is 29, and in Japan, it's 29.2.

So, a generation is now almost twice as long as it was even 100, 150 years ago.

Birth control has made that possible. Without it, we'd still be having kids in our teens and be worn out physically by 30. True, many of us are still having kids in our teens, but those are the ones that don't use birth control for whatever reason. (Religion is the #1 reason for that.)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Microscopictopic
 


I would say per individual it would come up to be approximately 52.5 mutations. When they do more tests of different families who really knows what the average will be, but by percentage it will make it easier to trace how fast evolution is.

Your ballpark number in the calculation is just as good as any. For my reworked number, I used the midpoint of 40 per human per generation. If you want to use 52.5, fine. That then increases the number of potential mutations to select from in humans to approximately 350B on Earth at a given moment.


As far as the overall population, if you are using the numbers of all of the mutations of the earth, then you would have to add all of their Dna to the equation also.

Doing so would ignore the heritability of traits. If you don't understand why, then you're basing your model on an ignorance of statistics.


Shorter time frame? Please reference source for this knowledge.

See Happy Bunny's post below. Also, you asked:


How many years would it take for our dna to go from amino acids to what we are today?

It makes sense that we would go through a unicellular phase if going from nonliving organic compounds to humans, no? As I showed earlier, populations of single celled organisms can go through literally thousands of generations per year. Not one generation every couple of decades like we do now.


I used the article because of the numbers that was used. Then using percentages I made my case.

As I pointed out above, your percentages only make your case if you treat the system at hand as a single lineage (i.e. ignoring the overall population size) and assume no heritability of favorable traits.


Actually the article said that the fossil evidence supported the 7 M year theory.

I know, that's exactly what I said. The evidence supporting a common ancestor with chimpanzees existing 5M years ago was based on the higher measured mutation rate from generation to generation. Using the more recently measured mutation rate that's lower, the genetic and fossil evidence line up. But, then again, the common ancestor existing 7Mya instead of 5Mya gives humans more time to have evolved. Not less.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelkhall
reply to post by HangTheTraitors
 





Would any REAL "god" wish to have such BRAIN-DEAD fools among him in the so-called "heaven" afterlife club??


Now think about what you just said. Now, what god would want a pathetic athiest in his afterlife club? We all know that the athiest would just tell him that he is not real and is a figment of imagination. How fun would that be for god? Not having someone to bow and scrape and be in awe of his might and awesomeness.




uhhh, you just made god seem really... creepy.

and your point is not even valid, atheism is not believing in god because there is no proof. If i died and somehow ended up in "god's nightclub" I would accept the fact that i was wrong (as would the majority of atherists i know) not run around denying what is right in front of me... that is what religious fanatics do





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join