It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science against evolution

page: 14
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   


No Bob. Evolution describes how we have the diversity we see today and in the fossil record.

if evolution could provide an answer, it would do so readily. instead, the gap is ignored. it is a key issue for evolution because evolution claims that beneficial, information adding mutations account for species variation. the first organism would only have one means of gaining more genetic information (it's very rare to begin with, and rarely, if ever, produces a beneficial mutation). therefore, the amount of information the first organism started with, and how it started in the first place is needed for evolution to be coherent.


Not all finches can breed and produce viable young. The offspring from these couplings are called mules for a reason. Darwin used finches to demonstrate how the environment of each finch shaped the birds over time.

care to back that claim up? i have no problem with an organism adapting to it's environment, but it doesn't do so through mutation. information is not added, but lost. breeding dogs for a certain characteristic makes them lose more characteristics in the process.


Looks promising. The title being 'Monkey-Man Hypothesis Thwarted by Mutation Rates'

logical fallacy. the title does not effect the validity or truthfulness of the information contained within.


You forget to mention this is from creationdigest.com. These are really unbiased and reliable sites ....... not.

same logical fallacy repeated.


The author of the article (not a paper) is Fred Williams A creationist minister and an engineer. So no bias there then and no qualifactions in the field of evolution either.

another logical fallacy combined with a double standard, as you have no problem accepting a paper written by an evolutionist as true (indeed, it seems those are the only papers you will listen to).


So I am meant to accept his babble and figures he plucks from thin air whilst ridiculing the scientists that he claims have done just that.

your use of "babble" and "plucks from thin air" highlights the fact that you barely even glanced at the article and the papers it references. you must not have even fully read my post, as i implicitly stated that all his numbers and facts were taken from papers listed at the bottom of the page. they're even ordered numerically.


I am to accept this engineering creationist minister who gives presentations (at very reasonable rates no doubt) over pier reviewed papers.

you are very fond of that logical fallacy. peer reviewed by people who completely agree. another combo with double standard mixed in. "at very reasonable rates no doubt" shows that you hate him just for being religious, and that you didn't bother to look up if he charges any money at all. most presentations cost money, especially scientific ones, but for the record i couldn't find any evidence that he has ever charged money.


I will not claim to have read the paper

no surprise there. accepting blindly is the scientific way, oh wait....


Well first difference is they tell you how they got the figures they used.

he uses their exact figures and includes a reference for each.


I can’t promise I will understand it anyway as like Fred I am just an engineer.

why do you so vehemently claim that evolution is correct when you admit you can't understand the research behind it? blind faith isn't faith, but foolishness. this is quite possibly the most important question in life, and it really doesn't take much to understand the paper.


Let me give you my reply so far. I have researched the source you provided and the resource the article attacks. The credibility of the authors and I have to say it does not look good for Fred Williams but I will get back to you.

i've honestly lost count at this point, but this is another logical fallacy. you're unwilling to truly read and understand either paper, but just go with your predetermined belief? but it isn't even YOUR belief, as you're just accepting what others tell you is true.

if you had read the paper, you would realize how it makes evolution impossible because there are so many harmful, information removing mutations added, and no new information being added.



BTW did you read the article Fred Williams is trying to discredit before you became so disgusted with scientists?

let me rephrase. i don't hate scientists, but i don't consider people who won't follow the evidence wherever it may lead as "scientists". evolutionary scientists have rejected the scientific method.

anyone who lies to themselves and believes things because they want them to be true, instead of pursuing what actually is true (regardless of consequence) disgusts me. i'm extremely pedantic.

www.detectingdesign.com...




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 



if evolution could provide an answer, it would do so readily. instead, the gap is ignored. it is a key issue for evolution because evolution claims that beneficial, information adding mutations account for species variation. the first organism would only have one means of gaining more genetic information (it's very rare to begin with, and rarely, if ever, produces a beneficial mutation). therefore, the amount of information the first organism started with, and how it started in the first place is needed for evolution to be coherent.
And that has what to do with ‘the theory of evolution does not and cannot explain creation?’


care to back that claim up? i have no problem with an organism adapting to it's environment, but it doesn't do so through mutation. information is not added, but lost. breeding dogs for a certain characteristic makes them lose more characteristics in the process.
Yep. Darwin based his observations on the different finches he found.


logical fallacy. the title does not effect the validity or truthfulness of the information contained within.
The title reflects the author’s attitude


same logical fallacy repeated.
Making sure you source information from credible sources is not a logical fallacy it is just logical


another logical fallacy combined with a double standard, as you have no problem accepting a paper written by an evolutionist as true (indeed, it seems those are the only papers you will listen to).
Questioning Williams credentials is neither a logical fallacy or double standards. Understanding his bias means one should be aware his information may be as well.

I did the same research on the scientists he was attacking; you should do the same before feeling shame because of them.


your use of "babble" and "plucks from thin air" highlights the fact that you barely even glanced at the article and the papers it references.
I read it a few times trying to see where he got his figures from and couldn’t. Babble it was and babble it is and his figures plucked from thin air.


you must not have even fully read my post, as i implicitly stated that all his numbers and facts were taken from papers listed at the bottom of the page.
Did you, he didn’t.


you are very fond of that logical fallacy. peer reviewed by people who completely agree.
Not as fond as you are of making unsubstantiated accusations. Tell me what you base your accusations on.


another combo with double standard mixed in. "at very reasonable rates no doubt" shows that you hate him just for being religious, and that you didn't bother to look up if he charges any money at all.
I don’t hate him as I don’t know him. What I have found out about him means he is not what I consider a reliable source.

You on the other hand seem to accepted what he says without question because it’s what you want to hear.


most presentations cost money, especially scientific ones, but for the record i couldn't find any evidence that he has ever charged money.
For the record until you show different either of our suspicions are valid


no surprise there. accepting blindly is the scientific way, oh wait....
And jumping to unfounded conclusions seems to be a creationist trait. I told you I had not read the paper as in sit down and take time to read it. Of course I scanned through it otherwise I would not be able to comment on the structure of it.


he uses their exact figures and includes a reference for each.
Really. All I saw was him saying their figures were wrong and the plucking his own out of thin air.


why do you so vehemently claim that evolution is correct when you admit you can't understand the research behind it?
Because of my own research and observations. But tell me why you think you are so qualified to know evolution is wrong and the scientist liars and charlatans?


blind faith isn't faith, but foolishness.
Is that so? You say I use logical fallacy but because I told you I had not had time to read the whole paper I somehow have admitted a blind faith in science


this is quite possibly the most important question in life, and it really doesn't take much to understand the paper.
No it really is not the most important question in life, get a grip.

Evolution is a description of how life diversified and you can agree or disagree with what it describes and either choice will not change your life in anyway. It does appear to threaten your fragile belief though.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 



i've honestly lost count at this point, but this is another logical fallacy.
Jeeze you try to slam me for needing to take time when reading a science paper and comparing it to what a creationist minister/engineer writes yet you can’t even use the fingers on both hands when counting. Now that is double standards.


you're unwilling to truly read and understand either paper, but just go with your predetermined belief? but it isn't even YOUR belief, as you're just accepting what others tell you is true.
I actually wrote I do not have time to read it at the time of replying but you go with what you want to believe to support your argument. A creationist trait.


if you had read the paper, you would realize how it makes evolution impossible because there are so many harmful, information removing mutations added, and no new information being added.
No I read Freds attack on a paper. You know Fred the engineer. I told you I would read the paper but had not had the time to when I replied.

I told you of my findings on the source you supplied as I always do and to be honest I usually don’t bother following any link to a creationist site. I decided to go ahead anyway and now you try to make some silly attempt at a win because I need time to read and compare the information given. Pretty bad form.


let me rephrase. i don't hate scientists, but i don't consider people who won't follow the evidence wherever it may lead as "scientists". evolutionary scientists have rejected the scientific method.
What a load of crap. Please supply the evidence for that load of BS


anyone who lies to themselves and believes things because they want them to be true, instead of pursuing what actually is true (regardless of consequence) disgusts me. i'm extremely pedantic.
Don’t hate yourself Bob, life is too short. Pedantic is not the word that springs to my mind

It appears you choose to limit yourself to creationist sites and accept information given from dubious sources that bolster your pre conceived beliefs. Have concluded all scientists are frauds even though you have no evidence to back that claim up.

Despite me telling you I will read and compare Freds article with the paper he attacks you scramble for a cheap win .

You’re on a crusade and I am not interested whether your god exists or not either way it does not change what evolution describes.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


I did read the article before replying and i gotta say he is talking from a very ignorant viewpoint. I will endeavor to read the papers he quotes as I get the impression he literally just grabbed the maths and ran with his own interpretation. As an example of what i think he did, my analysis of the same figures briefly below:

The genetic defects that would end in such a drastic manner for mankind would need to be expressed in the sex cells of the individual.

Woman Carries about 50000 eggs.
Man produces 20-100 million sperm per ejaculation

Natural selection begins in the womb.

Out of those 50000 eggs, only about 500 will be released.

Out of those 20-100 million sperms maybe10,000 actually reach the egg and only one of those thousands fertalise it.

15% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) and in a lot of these cases the woman wouldn't have even been aware that she was pregnant.

It is possible that a woman could be almost permanently pregnant and never be aware of it. Each of these would be a potential human being, A number of 40 offspring doesnt seem quite sych a large figure now does it?

So, when we take into consideration the number of poor genetic subjects that get filtered before birth, i don't see those figures as anything particular special and certainly, as quoted at the bottom of the article.



"Yours is a serious letter and it deserves a serious answer". He acknowledged it was a "serious problem" for the theory, but not "fatal" (for the record, he made it clear he still believes evolution has overwhelming evidence from other sources)

edit on 21-1-2013 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   


And that has what to do with ‘the theory of evolution does not and cannot explain creation?

i thought i made it pretty clear. the amount of information the first organism started with, how it even got genetic information, and it's reproduction cycle are key pieces of the puzzle. it effects how mutations occur and their rate.


Yep. Darwin based his observations on the different finches he found.

the claim you need to back up is that certain types of finches cannot breed, and this lack of ability to breed needs to be grounded in the addition of beneficial, information adding mutations.


The title reflects the author’s attitude

it reflects his position that evolution is wrong. attacking the title and ignoring all of the substance is a logical fallacy.


Making sure you source information from credible sources is not a logical fallacy it is just logical

the source of information has no bearing on the validity of the information itself. accepting sources as credible only if they agree with what you already agree is also illogical and dangerous. furthermore, the information in the article comes from a paper written BY PEOPLE YOU'VE ALREADY SAID MEET YOUR WACKY STANDARDS OF CREDIBILITY.


Questioning Williams credentials is neither a logical fallacy or double standards. Understanding his bias means one should be aware his information may be as well.

try googleing "circumstantial ad hominem fallacy" here, i'll help you.


A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."

www.nizkor.org...


I read it a few times trying to see where he got his figures from and couldn’t. Babble it was and babble it is and his figures plucked from thin air.

step 1: open the paper in your browser step. 2: notice the blue tinged numbers after different sentences. step 3: click them to find the source document.


Tell me what you base your accusations on.

see above example on circumstantial ad hominem logical fallacies.


What I have found out about him means he is not what I consider a reliable source.

another circumstantial logical fallacy.


You on the other hand seem to accepted what he says without question because it’s what you want to hear.

i've read both the source paper AND his paper, while you admitted to reading neither. let's bring the discussion back to the facts in the paper, if you would.


For the record until you show different either of our suspicions are valid

the burden of proof lies with you, as you made the claim. this is known as the argument from ignorance.


All I saw was him saying their figures were wrong and the plucking his own out of thin air.

i don't mean this as an insult, but you don't seem to have a knack for science. in their first figures, they used extremely biased numbers, and were still left with the impossibility of evolution occurring. then later they use the accepted averages, instead of the extremely biased ones. (you would know this even if you only read his paper). he points out how both figures were reached.


Because of my own research and observations. But tell me why you think you are so qualified to know evolution is wrong and the scientist liars and charlatans?

you have not responded to my claims with research, only logical fallacies. qualifications have NOTHING to do with whether something is true or not, only evidence and reason matter, and you have provided neither.


Evolution is a description of how life diversified and you can agree or disagree with what it describes and either choice will not change your life in anyway. It does appear to threaten your fragile belief though.

why would i care for others in any way if evolution were true, death was final, and nothing mattered? yes, it would change my life greatly. that is why it is so important. i've laid my beliefs out, backed by evidence and reason. there is no point to holding onto a belief that is wrong, so yes, you could say my belief is fragile. if the evidence pointed towards evolution, i would follow. yours is thick-headed. no amount of evidence or reason will change what you believe.

which is the better: fitting beliefs to facts, or believing things no matter what?

i would love to discuss the contents of the paper with someone who is at least reasonable. any takers?



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Ok, Your minister mis-quoted the fist piece of information he supplied.

In his article he is attempting to show that the high mutation rates prove evolution couldn't have happened. To demonstrate what is considered a harmful level he uses this "A. S. Kondrashov, Contamination of the genomes by very slightly deleterious mutations. Why have we not died 100 times over? Which clearly states.

[Quote]
Thus, if the genome size, G, in nucleotides substantially exceeds the Ne of the whole species, there is a dangerous range of selection coefficients, 1/G < s < 1/4Ne.


He then goes on to show that man exceeds, or at least comes very close to this figure by citing. "Eyre-Walker & Keightley, High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids". saying:



Let's first consider the recent Eyre-Walker & Keightley article in Nature magazine3. By comparing human and chimp differences in protein-coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious (harmful) mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation. They acknowledge that this seems too high


What these to papers demonstrate, in a way is the creationist mus-understanding that evolution occurs to at species level and not at individual level. Its the only reason why I can think of that one paper, that discusses species level events, is used as a marker by this minister to say that something else occurring at individual level is relevant.

I will still take a look at the other papers. But until somebody can explain to me correlation between these two events, then this article is just Mr Fred Williams own opinion based on poorly educated guess work and (until less bias is shown) a willful mis-representation of other peoples scientific endeavours.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 

according to evolution, new species don't just pop up, and changes DON'T happen at a species-wide level. they happen individually. beneficial mutations are passed on while harmful ones lead to the early demise of that individual, who is then less likely to pass on their genetic information.

Eyre-Walker & Keightley arrived at a U=1.6 rate AFTER using a genome size smaller than the accepted norm (weighing the numbers in the favor of evolution extensively)


If more realistic assumptions are used the problem gets much worse. First, they estimate that insertions/deletions and some functional non-genic sequences would each independently add 10% to the rate. Second, and more importantly, they assume a functional genome size of only 2.25% (60K genes). When they assume a more widely accepted 3% functional genome (80K genes), they cite U = 3.1

evolutionfairytale.com...
so, when Eyre-Walker & Keightley use the regular genome size (showing that they're trying to make the facts fit the theory, instead of the theory fit the facts), they got U=3.1

using this in the poisson formula for probability distribution, it means that every pair of humans would have to produce 40 children JUST to keep the genetic equilibrium and an equal sized population. this is not feasible for the human reproductive system. it is simply impossible.

edit on 21-1-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   


in this light, consider that more recent estimates suggest that the deleterious mutation rate is even higher. "Extrapolations from studies of humans and Drosophila (Mukai, 1979; Kondroshov, 1988; Crow, 1993) suggest that Ud > 5 is feasible." 49 However, the number of required offspring needed to compensate for a detrimental mutation rate of Ud = 5 would soar to 296 per female per generation! And, this is not the worst of it. Recent genetic studies have shown that much of what was once thought of as "junk DNA" is actually functional ( Link ). In fact, these recent studies suggest that the total amount of functional DNA in the human genome is not actually 2-3% as previously thought, but is upwards of 85-90%

www.detectingdesign.com...
40 kids per couple is at the absolute extreme in terms of favoritism towards evolution.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   


This brings us back to Eyre-Walker & Keightley's invocation of "synergistic epistasis", which is really a co-star in the "truncation selection" story (the terms are virtually synonymous). This process basically says that each new harmful mutation interacts with prior harmful mutations such that fitness is decreased more than it would have if the new mutation were acting by itself. This allows organisms to push below a fitness threshold where they can more readily be recognized by selection and eliminated from the population. Thus, harmful mutations are eliminated "in bunches". Here again we have pure speculation with no real, tangible evidence to support it.


Not sure if this is deliberate or not! Although it does appear that Fred Williams has attempted to define Truncated selection to fit in with his own goals in the past. you have to search to find a reasonably well described definition of truncation selection but there's one here

What i think Williams is trying to describe above, very poorly, is that genes do not act on there own. A gene, beneficial or harmful might not express itself unless another gene, or combination of genes are present/expressed.

He tries to confuse the reader by part explaining this concept, then throwing in truncation selection. The two are not the same.

e.g.
A gene that expresses itself by preventing the complete and effective formation of lungs (an obvious killer but as noted previously, a single gene in isolation would not be responsible for this) might sit unexpressed until both the genes for blue eyes and brown hair are also present and expressed. Result could be the loss of any of the traits individually, in pairs or in entirety.

There could be any number of potentially species threatening gene combinations within in us all right now, but the trigger for them to express themselves could have been extinct thousands/millions of years ago. Maybe the gene that expresses itself as a scaley epidermis went extinct in the human line because the gene for hairy toes caused both gene to be expressed by spontaneous internal combustion.

As logical fallacy seems to be the word of the day, I do take exception to the use of phrases such as "just so stories" & "just so explanation" Mr Williams is appealing to the readers bias towards his own point of view and using language to place ridicule on the scientific theories presented to explain observed anomalies. This will work with people who share his belief system, as they are hearing what they want to hear, however it does diminish his credibility with both oppositely biased and neutral readers.

Along with the language he chooses to use, his articles title, his lack of qualification in this area and his history of letters/papers and articles that have been answered and shown him to be lacking the essential education that would allow him to present himself as an expert, prove that he is not a creditable source of information in this subject.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


in this light, consider that more recent estimates suggest that the deleterious mutation rate is even higher. "Extrapolations from studies of humans and Drosophila (Mukai, 1979; Kondroshov, 1988; Crow, 1993) suggest that Ud > 5 is feasible." 49 However, the number of required offspring needed to compensate for a detrimental mutation rate of Ud = 5 would soar to 296 per female per generation! And, this is not the worst of it. Recent genetic studies have shown that much of what was once thought of as "junk DNA" is actually functional ( Link ). In fact, these recent studies suggest that the total amount of functional DNA in the human genome is not actually 2-3% as previously thought, but is upwards of 85-90%

www.detectingdesign.com...
40 kids per couple is at the absolute extreme in terms of favoritism towards evolution.



Not quite. If your looking at genetic transfer, you need to look at the transfer method. He constantly refers to births, as this is an emotional phrase that will garner support from emotional people. (no offense intended but religion is an emotion based ideal) When you view it as genetic pairings, or even beter, potential human beings, the number becomes far less significant. How many of those genetic defects actual prevent the sperm with the defect from reaching the egg? Thats gotta filter it out somewhat.

Studies into spontaneous abortions suggest that the majority are due to defects that would not allow the fetus to come to term. (thinking natural rather than "mom was a crack head")

And I still have issue with comparing figure that refer to species level events being used as markers for individual level effects

Its a bit like saying that by according to the numbers, there should be no ginger headed people on the planet. they should have gone extinct thousands of years ago. Any population study of 100 people might show that 4 people have the gene for ginger hair. At individual level this has them on the endangered species list....and yet, they're still here



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


in this light, consider that more recent estimates suggest that the deleterious mutation rate is even higher. "Extrapolations from studies of humans and Drosophila (Mukai, 1979; Kondroshov, 1988; Crow, 1993) suggest that Ud > 5 is feasible." 49 However, the number of required offspring needed to compensate for a detrimental mutation rate of Ud = 5 would soar to 296 per female per generation! And, this is not the worst of it. Recent genetic studies have shown that much of what was once thought of as "junk DNA" is actually functional ( Link ). In fact, these recent studies suggest that the total amount of functional DNA in the human genome is not actually 2-3% as previously thought, but is upwards of 85-90%

www.detectingdesign.com...
40 kids per couple is at the absolute extreme in terms of favoritism towards evolution.



Interesting paper that one. (it hasnt been lost on me that it will be biased towards the religious view)

I will read it more thoroughly however, scrolling up from where it was when i opened it. The figures derived at that Fred Williams quotes, and those shown above are the result of samples taken from a single family of four individuals two of which have genetic disorders.

probably not the best sample to use.




We analyzed the whole-genome sequences of a family of four, consisting of two siblings and their parents. Family-based sequencing allowed us to delineate recombination sites precisely, identify 70% of the sequencing errors (resulting in > 99.999% accuracy), and identify very rare single-nucleotide polymorphisms. We also directly estimated a human intergeneration mutation rate of ~1.1 × 10−8 per position per haploid genome. Both offspring in this family have two recessive disorders: Miller syndrome, for which the gene was concurrently identified, and primary ciliary dyskinesia, for which causative genes have been previously identified. Family-based genome analysis enabled us to narrow the candidate genes for both of these Mendelian disorders to only four. Our results demonstrate the value of complete genome sequencing in families.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

synergistic epistasis as been dropped as a possibility by evolutionists.


A gene that expresses itself by preventing the complete and effective formation of lungs (an obvious killer but as noted previously, a single gene in isolation would not be responsible for this) might sit unexpressed until both the genes for blue eyes and brown hair are also present and expressed. Result could be the loss of any of the traits individually, in pairs or in entirety.

what you're talking about is called an alelle, and you further highlight the fact that it would be very hard to tell whether a child (and at the very utmost minimum, 40 would be required) has new deleterious mutations or not. the above example is considered a deleterious mutation (only about .001% of mutations aren't).

you're right that truncated selection is different from synergistic epistasis, though neither have any evidence to support them, and even if they were true, they don't solve the critical problem of how many births are required.

credentials have no influence. how many times must i say this? it is a form of ad hominem. i'm trying to talk facts (originating from research done by evolutionists) and the only response i get is "he's not qualified".



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   


it hasnt been lost on me that it will be biased towards the religious view

i will not further reply to anyone who uses the same logical fallacies over and over, even after i have demonstrated them to be as such.

if you can show the researcher to be biased (as i did with the Eyre-Walker & Keightley numbers), then i'd agree with you.

please answer me this: what is your response to the obviously unsustainable rate of deleterious mutations which mandate that each female must produce 40-296 children? since humans cannot reproduce that many times, evolution isn't possible.

synergistic epistasis only would get rid of all the kids with deleterious mutations, and truncation selection isn't feasible because we now know that around 90% of the human genome is active.
edit on 21-1-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by idmonster
 

according to evolution, new species don't just pop up, and changes DON'T happen at a species-wide level. they happen individually. beneficial mutations are passed on while harmful ones lead to the early demise of that individual, who is then less likely to pass on their genetic information.

Eyre-Walker & Keightley arrived at a U=1.6 rate AFTER using a genome size smaller than the accepted norm (weighing the numbers in the favor of evolution extensively)


If more realistic assumptions are used the problem gets much worse. First, they estimate that insertions/deletions and some functional non-genic sequences would each independently add 10% to the rate. Second, and more importantly, they assume a functional genome size of only 2.25% (60K genes). When they assume a more widely accepted 3% functional genome (80K genes), they cite U = 3.1

evolutionfairytale.com...
so, when Eyre-Walker & Keightley use the regular genome size (showing that they're trying to make the facts fit the theory, instead of the theory fit the facts), they got U=3.1

using this in the poisson formula for probability distribution, it means that every pair of humans would have to produce 40 children JUST to keep the genetic equilibrium and an equal sized population. this is not feasible for the human reproductive system. it is simply impossible.

edit on 21-1-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



Nearly missed this one.

Absolutely the opposite. Evolution happens at species level, never at individual level. The theory of evolution is always species level. Changes and adaptation which fit into the theory of evolution, occur at individual and species level. but evolution is a species wife event.

This is another curve ball that those against evolution drill into their various congregations, and again they use the appeal to incredulity - "as if a duck could turn into a crocodile (everybody laugh)"

These changes at individual level are occurring all the time and go ahead total noticed because the majority of the changes fit into the mean for that species. Its only on comparison of distant (time wise) relatives that the changes become apparent.

We make it hard on ourselves to understand this by labeling things as species (insects mamals, fish etc) but if you just call everything "life" it becomes so much easier.

As an example:

Its dead easy to see that all humans are different within certain ranges, height for example. I gather that you are happy to discuss adaptation as you seem comfortable with Darwins finches adapting to their environment. So unless you hold to special creation, (i.e. the laws of nature do not apply to man as we are gods special creation.) then its not much of a leap of imagination to envisage a time where our bodies were equally open to adaptation by natural selection as all the other animals of the African plains.

(If our eyesight was better and our throwing arm stronger, we took more meat back to the village and become a much sought after husband. had many wives and many children who also had better eyes and stronger arms. Others caught little meat, had no wives, no children and their blood line ended without descent)

Now remove our man made classification system of genera, species etc and just call life what it is - Life.

Life has adapted to fill every niche on this planet. The environment has sculpted life into some amazing body shapes. But its still all the same. we are all just adaptations of life (spelled GATC)

Sometimes life adapts to its environment as quickly as the environment changes and the form that that life took continues to create more life, and sometimes life fails to adapt as quickly as the environment and that form ends.

This is evolution.

Sometimes environment willing, the forms of life adapt relatively quick. Most of the time forms of life adapts excruciatingly slowly. The multiple reasons that have caused life to produce so many different forms, be they random DNA mutation, environmental disaster, sun flares sexual selection or other selective pressures are studied, hypothesized over, observed, experimented on, replicated and grouped together under the heading of the theory of evolution.

Anyhoo, lecture over



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


it hasnt been lost on me that it will be biased towards the religious view

i will not further reply to anyone who uses the same logical fallacies over and over, even after i have demonstrated them to be as such.

if you can show the researcher to be biased (as i did with the Eyre-Walker & Keightley numbers), then i'd agree with you.

please answer me this: what is your response to the obviously unsustainable rate of deleterious mutations which mandate that each female must produce 40-296 children? since humans cannot reproduce that many times, evolution isn't possible.

synergistic epistasis only would get rid of all the kids with deleterious mutations, and truncation selection isn't feasible because we now know that around 90% of the human genome is active.
edit on 21-1-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)


And I will no longer read any article post that relies solely on such obviously biased source material.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


credentials have no influence. how many times must i say this? it is a form of ad hominem. i'm trying to talk facts (originating from research done by evolutionists) and the only response i get is "he's not qualified".


Of course credentials have influence...dont tell me that when you dieing of man flu the first person you rush off to for advice is your electrician.

Not all logic is a fallacy, sometimes its just logic!
edit on 21-1-2013 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 

i think you misread what i posted. i fully understand how natural selection works, and i believe in it to a point. it makes logical sense that the more able of a species have a higher rate of survival.

the mutations that result in a new species happen in individuals according to evolution.

the problem is that evolution requires that either the amount of genetic information stay the same, or increase. however, i have given evidence that this is not the case and the amount of reproduction necessary for this to be possible in humans exceeds both our physical capabilities and known birth rates.

finches specialized according to the food they ate. they didn't exceed the genetic possibilities of previous generations, it's just that different genes became expressed, and others lost. they remain finches, and always will until their genome becomes so damaged and limited that they go extinct.

i noticed that you didn't answer the elephant in the room, being the required birth rate.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   


And I will no longer read any article post that relies solely on such obviously biased source material.

show me where the author's bias caused him to relay false data, or where i have used any false numbers. it was all taken (and you can verify it) from evolutionist's papers. i've said that if you can show me biased INFORMATION, i wouldn't use it in an argument.


Of course credentials have influence

not when examining information put forth by a source. einstein was a clerk at a patent office when he began to develop and publish theories, should they be discounted because he was only a lowly clerk working in a completely unrelated field? no.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





This just shows that you zero understanding of anything related to the scientific issue of evolution.
So what are you saying? It sounds like she has speciated?




Another obvious falsehood.
It's all in a bible, you should pick one up someday and see for yourself.




Please tell us, who made that claim?
Someone on ATS made this claim to me, I wanna say it was Barcs but not sure.




Clearly, you need to take a course in biology. You have consistently been wrong in understanding even the basics of biology. Learn the meaning of simple terms such as evolution and specie.
Well did I understand correctly that a species has never been witnessed changing into another species? Did I also understand correctly that there is no evidence that a species can change into another species?




Again the laughable claim that the Grand Canyon is evidence for a global flood. Add a basic geology course and learn. The strong evidence against the myth in the bible has been known about since the 1500s.

Yes, for 500 years people have openly known that the fairy tales of the bible are just fairy tales

Geologists admit that they do not know how the Grand Canyon formed, but for the last 140 years, they have insisted that the Colorado River carved the canyon over millions of years and somehow removed the evidence.1

Grand canyon
Anyone with half a brain knows what happened here. Water was added to this planet. There is no way you could move such vast amounts of water from the ocean using natural causes. Supernatural powers were certainly at work. If you want to believe god flooded the planet like the bible says, its probably close. We do seem to have a close by planet missing a lot of water






There are 2 incorrect myths in genesis. Abduction is ludicrous. Are you proposing that to make the bible look better? It really matters little how long you've spent learning fairy tales. They are still not true.
There are about 14 points that all say it was an abduction. You just don't know the first thing about this subject so its difficult for you to grasp and probably sounds like I'm just grasping at possibilities. Right off the top, for two people to appear out of no where and claims that they were just created, yet they aren't children, is ludacris. People have always known that aliens abduct people but that is not the reason for believing in this. Adam and Eve both appear to have their memorys erased based on the fact that they seem to have new found memory of being embarrased about being naked. The only way they could have these feelings is if they had learned about it at one time in the past.

God is asking in the garden where are they, with a slight translation error, it appears more that he was actually asking them if they knew where they were, to test and see if their memory erasure was holding, especially since god would know where they are. Memory loss is not an unheard of thing, we can even induce this type of activity just using alcohol, not that I'm saying thats how he did it. The loss of memory is called Transient Global Amnesia and all doctors agree that exposing the subject to things they would know and be familliar with is the best way to get their memory back. What this means is that when they ate from the tree of knowledge, there was something familliar about it that brought on embarrasment from being naked.

God lays them down to sleep, this is a common ability known about aliens called the greys.

So as you can see, you are incorrect, there is an abundant pool of evidence that its an abduction scenerio. Perhaps the boldest clue is in the ezekiel chapter where god is seen coming down to earth in a space craft. It's clear is an alien.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
OK, I get it you don't like people stating that the source material is biased. BTW pointing it out is not a logical fallacy. Stating that I place less credence on the information contained within it would have been, but I didn't do that did I? No logical fallacy...I accept your implied apology


Back to the discussion and why did is important to acknowledge biases in these type of articles?

The article you linked for me (tvm) states quite correctly that:



detrimental mutations outnumber beneficial mutations by at least 1,000 to 1


With a link to the source. Click on the link and find the reference to good/bad ratio and its in the following paragraph.



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. (Remine, The Biotic Message, page 221.) This model is actually not realistic, because it does not take into account the interactions between various mutations. Nor does it distinguish major mutations, which change the shape of proteins, from minor mutations, which do not.


First off, these figures are based on mutations to10% percent of DNA
They say less than half of mutations to this 10% are neutral (not sure what that means but lets say that 60% of this 10% are harmful or fatal.
So after giving the figures that both biased articles jump all over to show how impossible evolution is, this paper then moves on ito the section I have emboldened above.

The reason why we must knowledge bias, is that it forces us to check the source material of the source material. If you really want the truth, if it's that important to you, acknowledge that the material you are reading is biased, even when the source material isn't.

Or just do what I do, and stop reading once youe own biases are confirmed.



new topics




 
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join