tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post5906815268555039057..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: You Won’t Believe How Evolutionists Say These Two Major Contradictions Cancel Each Other OutUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86394162872600499252012-03-15T19:26:03.458-07:002012-03-15T19:26:03.458-07:00Ritchie
“Their environments keep changing and the...Ritchie<br /><br />“Their environments keep changing and their gene pools evolve to keep up with the changes in their environment.”<br /><br />How do you know? Their phenotypes looks very similar. <br /><br />“Again that's a relative term. A million-years-old crocodile is just as suited to its environment as a modern croc.”<br /><br />And the crocodiles that lived during all this time in similar enviroments didn´t change?<br /><br />“Well these are new questions, certainly. But there is nothing in these which CONTRADICTS the idea of evolution, is there?”<br /><br />No, I asked the same question before. Not necessary contradicts evolution but I do not see natural selection could be the force that led that changes.<br /><br />“I don't think you grasp the scale of how many genes you have and how many ways there are for genes to mutate. We are talking billions here. The idea that any species has got as good as it is possible to be is silly.”<br /><br />1) Nothing in the universe has infinite forms to exists. There are few types of galaxies, few types of starts, not infinite kind of planets, there is a finite number of natural elements, there are a few types of atomics particles. Why should life have infinite forms? <br />2) Many components of life has only small possibility of variation, histones, ribosomes, the genetic code, the replication machinery, the sodium chanels are almost the same since the UCLA of the eucariotes. May be the theoretical variants are billion but since life started seems only few works for many things<br />3) May be posibilities are billions but you said that adding a pair of legs to tetrapods is out of the rich of evolution, so many of that billion of possibilities are out of reach for evolution. <br />How do you know that there is no end? On what you base your assertion? Faith?<br /><br />“Because they are out-competed by other species.”<br /><br />“We are currently in the process of causing a great extinction”<br /><br />“No, it means the normal rules do not apply to us”<br /><br />So, with man, normal evolution ended, and the only evolution left is human evolution.<br /><br />“Animals react to the changes in their envirnoment, not in anticipation of them.”<br /><br />So Lammarck is correct.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52127197689836986182012-03-15T11:32:31.210-07:002012-03-15T11:32:31.210-07:00Blas -
So gene pool can only improve, but does i...Blas - <br /><br /><b>So gene pool can only improve, but does it?Is the gene pool of insects and spiders better than a million years ago?</b><br /><br />Not in any objective sense. 'Better' is a relative term.<br /><br />Their environments keep changing and their gene pools evolve to keep up with the changes in their environment.<br /><br /><b>Is now the gene pool of a crocodile, a coelacanth or other living fossils better than when they appeared?</b><br /><br />Again that's a relative term. A million-years-old crocodile is just as suited to its environment as a modern croc.<br /><br /><b>If the gene pool is today better than in the past why half of the living species are in risk of extintion?</b><br /><br />Oh that's easy - humans. We are currently in the process of causing a great extinction.<br /><br /><b>But the improvement of the gene pool do not explains why procariote become an eucariote, an unicelular animal became a multicelular animal, an asexual reproductive life become sexual reprodutive, a reptil become a mammal or a bird.</b><br /><br />Well these are new questions, certainly. But there is nothing in these which CONTRADICTS the idea of evolution, is there?<br /><br /><b>You have no way to demostrate that there are good mutation left. Are there infinite mutation and changes allowed?</b><br /><br />I don't think you grasp the scale of how many genes you have and how many ways there are for genes to mutate. We are talking billions here. The idea that any species has got as good as it is possible to be is silly.<br /><br /><b>Why species go extint then?</b><br /><br />Because they are out-competed by other species.<br /><br /><b>The changing enviroment do not produce the right mutation, that should happen in advance, so the changing enviroment is not the cause of improvement of the gene pool.</b><br /><br />True. Animals react to the changes in their envirnoment, not in anticipation of them.<br /><br /><b>Do not mean that the evolution ended with us?</b><br /><br />No, it means the normal rules do not apply to us. A reference to the fact that through our civilisation we take care of the weak - the old, the sick, the disabled. We shield our species from the rigours of ruthless natural selection.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32103897370893669252012-03-14T18:38:43.145-07:002012-03-14T18:38:43.145-07:00Ritchie:
"If only beneficial mutations accul...Ritchie:<br /> "If only beneficial mutations acculumlate, then the gene pool can only improve."<br /><br />Yes that is right bad mutations cannot be fixed, so gene pool can,in theory, only improve given an enviroment, a changing enviroment can led to extintion also with "good" mutations. <br />So gene pool can only improve, but does it?Is the gene pool of insects and spiders better than a million years ago? Is now the gene pool of a crocodile, a coelacanth or other living fossils better than when they appeared? <br />If the gene pool is today better than in the past why half of the living species are in risk of extintion?<br /><br />But the improvement of the gene pool do not explains why procariote become an eucariote, an unicelular animal became a multicelular animal, an asexual reproductive life become sexual reprodutive, a reptil become a mammal or a bird.<br /><br />"Oh yes, of course. The present is not an end-point for evolution. Make no mistake, animals are still evolving now. So are humans. How could we not in an ever-changing world?"<br /><br />1. You have no way to demostrate that there are good mutation left. Are there infinite mutation and changes allowed? Why species go extint then? Don´t you say that evolution have restrictions? that has to work with what it has Do not make that that evolution will end in some point?<br /> <br />2. The changing enviroment do not produce the right mutation, that should happen in advance, so the changing enviroment is not the cause of improvement of the gene pool.<br /><br />I couldn´t/wouldn´t see a boring video of 59´ to listen 3´minutes of explanations but I got that the examples it shows are adaptations to the enviroment. Are that adaptations reversibles? are trully new genes? or we will found like antibiotic resistance eisted before the antibiotics?<br /><br />What surprise me was an affirmation that I never heared from an evolutionist:<br /><br />9:07 Normal rules of evolution do not apply to us.<br /><br />Do not mean that the evolution ended with us?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8415808852877898232012-03-14T10:49:54.733-07:002012-03-14T10:49:54.733-07:00That make all evolution is ramdom.
It makes the d...<b>That make all evolution is ramdom.</b><br /><br />It makes the direction evolution goes in random, but it does not alter the fact that evolution is directional. If only beneficial mutations acculumlate, then the gene pool can only improve.<br /><br /><b>How do you know? There are still advantageous mutatons left?</b><br /><br />Oh yes, of course. The present is not an end-point for evolution. Make no mistake, animals are still evolving now. So are humans. How could we not in an ever-changing world?<br /><br />http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/are-we-still-evolving/Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56269017143962199462012-03-14T09:47:49.644-07:002012-03-14T09:47:49.644-07:00Ritchie
"But mutation is random. The first ke...Ritchie<br />"But mutation is random. The first key process of evolution is random mutation."<br /><br />That make all evolution is ramdom.<br /><br /> "will evolve" <br /><br />How do you know? There are still advantageous mutatons left?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76814506830656995092012-03-14T08:22:45.824-07:002012-03-14T08:22:45.824-07:00But mutation is random. The first key process of e...But mutation is random. The first key process of evolution is random mutation.<br /><br />These mutations are each put through the filter of natural selection. The beneficial ones are kept and prosper, while the disadvantageous ones are removed.<br /><br />Thus, while we cannot predict specific mutations, we can predict that the species as a whole will evolve in a way that suits its environment.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17367319937904291822012-03-14T06:45:24.539-07:002012-03-14T06:45:24.539-07:00Really? What does Darwinian theory predict?Really? What does Darwinian theory predict?Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43344283631085216192012-03-14T06:44:18.929-07:002012-03-14T06:44:18.929-07:00This is a good imagine. We can suppose that the fo...This is a good imagine. We can suppose that the formation of drops is ramdon forgetting that given all the information we would be able to say when and where are formed. Once a drop is formed knowing initial speed and position aplying the gravity law we can know exactly where the drops go. <br />But as the formation of drops is ramdom, the pattern of the rain is still ramdom no matter the existance of a fixed process is part of it. In the same way, also assuming that natural selection is not ramdom, evolution is. Gravity needs the drop to bring it back, NS needs the organism to be selected, the appearence of what we see is ramdom.<br /><br />According with your link:<br /><br />“The organisms with beneficial changes enjoy a competitive advantage, and these changes are passed on throughout the population and become common; those with deleterious changes are at a disadvantage, are less likely to reproduce, and do not pass these changes on, causing them to disappear out of the population.”<br /><br />But this is not observed. Procariotes reproduce every 20 minutes, how could slower reproductive eucariotes be selected? And if there is a big advantage how procariotes are still there and NS did not make disappear the population? The same question coul be done with unicellular and multicellular organism, organism asexual reproduced and sexually reproduced. Why NS do not make disappear the cold blood reptils when appeared warm blood reptil that led to mammals? Whay it do not happened again when appeared warm blood reptil that led to birds?Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88052167143733791732012-03-14T00:45:28.361-07:002012-03-14T00:45:28.361-07:00Neal -
No mechanisms that we observe in operatio...Neal - <br /><br /><b>No mechanisms that we observe in operation support such a process.</b><br /><br />Just out of curiosity though, what mechanisms support the idea of Goddidit? What mechanisms are even PROPOSED for such a scenario? Be really specific please...Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73305759099765136872012-03-14T00:41:55.898-07:002012-03-14T00:41:55.898-07:00Neal -
Adaption via selection of existing traits...Neal - <br /><br /><b>Adaption via selection of existing traits is not evolution.</b><br /><br />Yes it is. That's natural selection right there.<br /><br /><b>Mutation that increases survival under a specific stress (like sickle cell anemia) comes with a price tag on overall fitness.</b><br /><br />Not necessarily. Mutations can be entirely beneficial.<br /><br /><b>Mutations that break things in order to allow some narrow survival advantage are not evolution either.</b><br /><br />Again, yes they are. If a mutation confers an overall survival advantage, however slight, then it is a beneficial mutation. And evolution is simply the accumulation and spread of such mutations throughout a population's gene pool.<br /><br />It clear you have no clue whatsoever what evolution actually is.<br /><br /><b>These appear to have a small backwards direction, but are bounded (e coli, etc).</b><br /><br />Lenski's E.Coli bacteria study demonstrated random mutation and natural selection producing an increase in information in the genome. That is evolution under the microscope - observable, demonstrable, repeatable, testable.<br /><br /><b>Evolution is the process by which all of life is descended from one supposed common ancestor.</b><br /><br />Specifically, that's common ancestry.<br /><br /><b>No mechanisms that we observe in operation support such a process.</b><br /><br />Yes there are. Here, educate yourself, why don't you:<br /><br />http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIMechanisms.shtmlRitchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43146512964070885272012-03-14T00:32:32.436-07:002012-03-14T00:32:32.436-07:00Blas -
Can you tell me exactly the trajectory of...Blas - <br /><br />Can you tell me exactly the trajectory of a single raindrop which will fall on Salisbury plains at 28th April 2058?<br /><br />Of course you cannot. Because there are too many factors to take into consideration. The wind for one - whether there will be any objects in the way for another.<br /><br />Now a determinist would argue that all these things are POSSIBLE to work out, in theory, but in practice such a thing is surely far too complicated for us to do.<br /><br />Does that mean gravity is random? No. The raindrop will not fall in a totally random direction. It's main path of motion will, generally speaking, be down.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48213669123631590042012-03-13T22:58:01.417-07:002012-03-13T22:58:01.417-07:00Very persuasive,Collin. Here's another,I use a...Very persuasive,Collin. Here's another,I use a golf club to advance the ball. Sometimes I use my foot for the same purpose.By Geoxus' First Theorem of Computer Inference, " if a designed object performs an action then any object that performs that action or something analogous is designed",another nail in the coffin of Darwinismvelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4321106902196904582012-03-13T21:04:35.570-07:002012-03-13T21:04:35.570-07:00Subsequently, protein-coding genic richness appear...<i>Subsequently, protein-coding genic richness appears to have essentially plateaued.</i><br /><br />This is about backwards of what Darwinian theory predicts.<br /><br />Whole genomic analysis is the deathknell of Darwinism. Unless they come up with some kind of "multiverse" theory.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60728940312719659902012-03-13T15:51:53.106-07:002012-03-13T15:51:53.106-07:00velikovskys
"Blas,not being able to predict...velikovskys <br /><br />"Blas,not being able to predict the outcome does not mean the outcome is random. Eclipses were unpredictable for most of history, but they weren't random."<br /><br />Ok, we can say as far as we know it is ramdom, but maybe it is predictable.<br />But if we found that it is predictably, man existance should predictably an necessary. <br />You cannoy have the cake and eat it.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58336705253014095282012-03-13T13:44:45.303-07:002012-03-13T13:44:45.303-07:00Blas,not being able to predict the outcome does no...Blas,not being able to predict the outcome does not mean the outcome is random. Eclipses were unpredictable for most of history, but they weren't random.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78852806072644717392012-03-13T13:31:56.933-07:002012-03-13T13:31:56.933-07:00So now "designedness" is "computern...So now "designedness" is "computerness". Is the "computer inference" comping soon?Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11666427091115736432012-03-13T12:50:08.765-07:002012-03-13T12:50:08.765-07:00Didn't Behe's book have all kinds of math?...Didn't Behe's book have all kinds of math?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86186572403276838732012-03-13T12:49:42.344-07:002012-03-13T12:49:42.344-07:00natschuster
Thorton:
These people did some math:...<i>natschuster<br /><br />Thorton:<br /><br />These people did some math:<br /><br />http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1</i><br /><br />Yep, they calculated a totally meaningless number based on a ridiculous scenario that no one in science says or thinks happened, and self-published it with zero professional peer review.<br /><br />It got a good laugh from the scientific community too.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33361390923384724422012-03-13T12:47:00.827-07:002012-03-13T12:47:00.827-07:00Here's some math stuff:
http://bio-complexit...Here's some math stuff:<br /><br /><br />http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15024641777502592362012-03-13T12:42:12.105-07:002012-03-13T12:42:12.105-07:00Thorton:
These people did some math:
http://bio-...Thorton:<br /><br />These people did some math:<br /><br />http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88092871131033579992012-03-13T12:37:56.877-07:002012-03-13T12:37:56.877-07:00natschuster
Thorton:
Are you agreeing with me?
...<i>natschuster<br /><br />Thorton:<br /><br />Are you agreeing with me? </i><br /><br />I agree 100% that you're a lying Creationist troll.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59804830185873617762012-03-13T12:29:57.462-07:002012-03-13T12:29:57.462-07:00Thorton:
Are you agreeing with me?
And do evolu...Thorton:<br /><br />Are you agreeing with me? <br /><br />And do evolutionists have any figures about how probable evolution is?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11440385340805226032012-03-13T12:14:14.223-07:002012-03-13T12:14:14.223-07:00natschuster
Whenever the gross improbability of e...<i>natschuster<br /><br />Whenever the gross improbability of evolution is pointed out, evolutionists say that it isn't evolution that is improbable, it is abiogenesis.</i><br /><br />Whenever a Creationist troll dishonestly claims evolution is a gross improbability, evolutionists point out that the Creationist troll hasn't done any validated calculations and doesn't have near enough information to even begin to compute actual probabilities.<br /><br />But that doesn't stop the Creationist troll from repeating the lie.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38626983270504348822012-03-13T11:47:42.194-07:002012-03-13T11:47:42.194-07:00Let me offer an analogy and the darwinists can tel...Let me offer an analogy and the darwinists can tell me why it does not work. <br /><br />We send men to Mars and they find a fabulously complex computer. It has all of the hallmarks of our computers and some complex engineering unknown to man. One of the astronauts says, "This sure looks designed!" the other says, "well, it merely looks designed. After all, this is a big universe and it was bound to happen somewhere. And keep in mind that all sets of cards dealt in a casino are themselves highly improbable but the existence of SOME set of cards is vitually guaranteed." The first astronaut then says, "So I guess it's not designed?" Second astronaut, "Nope, it just appears that way."<br /><br />Now let's think about the most complex "computer" in existence: Life. Billions of times more complex than a computer, error correction mechanisms, redundancies, multiple interdependent moving parts. It just "appears" designed, but given the fact that cards can be dealt in a casino, it merely looks designed.Collinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04426000655011254559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12939101934106649342012-03-13T09:44:54.482-07:002012-03-13T09:44:54.482-07:00If you can identify the targets and provide a soun...If you can identify the targets and provide a sound justification for your methodology to do so, you shall be awarded the prestigious Geoxus Prize of Orthopaedics (sorry, that's the most appropriate category available).Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.com