Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

onceforgivennowfree

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 14 of 49
 [ 977 posts ] 
onceforgivennowfree
Author Message
creationistPosts: 45Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:55 am

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Ok so please tel me more about that “prediction” what degree of discordances does evolution allow, and how do you know it?


Ohhhhh....that's a great question Dan.

Of course the answer will be "Any and all discordances are allowed. We'll just shift the goalposts and change the evolutionary model to make the new discordances fit."
Tue May 20, 2014 9:21 pm
creationistPosts: 45Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:55 am

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Ra won't reply to this but maybe someone else can fill me in.

Which gene(s) codes for teeth in dinosaurs and which gene(s) code for teeth in chickens? And sources please.
Tue May 20, 2014 9:59 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2752Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

creationist wrote:Of course the answer will be "Any and all discordances are allowed. We'll just shift the goalposts and change the evolutionary model to make the new discordances fit."

Can you name an example?
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Tue May 20, 2014 10:01 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2752Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

creationist wrote:Ra won't reply to this but maybe someone else can fill me in.

Which gene(s) codes for teeth in dinosaurs and which gene(s) code for teeth in chickens? And sources please.

It's the same, because a chicken is a dinosaur.
Unless of course you are talking about dinosaurs that lived in the jurassic or the triassic, like a T-Rex or a velocirraptor, in that case you won't get any. Sorry, DNA doesn't "survive" that long.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Tue May 20, 2014 10:05 pm
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2695Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

creationist wrote:
You seem to be misunderstanding something here about the "God of the gaps" argument.

Let me explain: We live in nature. It is all around us, and in it, many natural processes take place. Throughout the years, natural explanations have supplanted supernatural
explanations for how our natural world works. Our picture of the natural world could be likened to a jig-saw puzzle. Over the years, more pieces have been added to the whole
picture, but the picture is not yet complete. Some pieces are missing. There are gaps in the picture. Some theists are quick to point to these gaps and say that "Well, we
don't know how this works, therefore, God!" This is the "God of the gaps" argument.


In the best interest of keeping things going with you and Iso I'm going to tackle one thing at a time with your guys.

First off, I understand the God of the gaps argument. I don't think you understand the nature of the gaps argument. If you do then let me know and we'll continue.

I'll try and make this simple. Do you think life came from non life naturally? This isn't a 'gotcha' question. Just trying to give an analogy.



1: Like I said, I assumed you understood the GotG argument, but your NotG argument is not analogous to it. Nature is not interchangable with God in the argument. This is what I don't think you understood.


2: Yeah, I do think life came from non-life naturally. I find it possible, probably and even likely.

Why do you ask? That wasn't what was being discussed. In fact, you butted in on a response I made to OFNF, misunderstanding my entire post, and going off on a tangent.
I had to spend a rather large post explaining your misunderstanding, and then you reply again by ignoring everything I said in my post - and yet again trying to take it somewhere that I had no intention whatsoever of taking it.
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Tue May 20, 2014 10:31 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3214Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Greetings,

Thank you, dandan, for finally posting the paper.

The paper is from 2009 (published 2010), so it's slightly dated.

One thing I tend to do when faced with any paper is to check if it's been cited by anyone since publication and see what they say about the research - in this case, copy the title, right-click in Firefox, and "Search for ... in Google".

And sure enough a number of people (187) have cited it since - here's one (2012) as a example:

Rates and Fitness Consequences of New Mutations in Humans

Interestingly, he disagrees with Lynch.

So, where does that put the claim that deletions outnumber insertions?

Here's another (2012), which explores what the lower mutation rates mean for dating divergences between humans and other apes:

Revising the human mutation rate: implications for understanding human evolution

And here's another (2014) exploring the discrepancies between insertion-favouring versus deletion-favouring models, the need for caution and further research to identify cryptic mutation hotspots:

Strong Heterogeneity in Mutation Rate Causes Misleading Hallmarks of Natural Selection on Indel Mutations in the Human Genome

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Last edited by Dragan Glas on Tue May 20, 2014 11:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Tue May 20, 2014 10:36 pm
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

This thread is utterly pathetic. Right at the beginning I suggested that we must be absolutely clear on our terms and properly define everything. I also suggested that it's essential people agree what science is.
Apparently, we're still not passed this, otherwise people like dandan wouldn't make such utterly absurd statements as:
Dandan wrote:I said that “mutations + NS = deterioration”. This is something that we know and that can only be explained by creationism, not by evolutionism.


First of all, I already said in another thread that it is extremely difficult to measure if a mutation is harmful or not. I gave the example of the huge change of an organism going from having no fins to having fins. (Huge because of all the various mutations needed.) But for the sake of argument, let's assume it's a single mutation. Obviously in a human, that mutation would be vastly deleterious, but in a fish??
Or let us take the case of sickle-cell anaemia: In Europe, it would be considered a deleterious mutation (life expectancy close to 40 years), but in Malaria-infested areas (Sub-Saharan Africa, for example) it's a beneficial mutation because it protects from Malaria.

So already that's a problem. But let's assume we know of a perfect way to analyse if a mutation is harmful, neutral or beneficial. What proportion of harmful to neutral to beneficial would you need? Now we get to the actual numbers: They vary quite a bit. One paper (2003) suggested that roughly 70% of all amino acid mutations have deleterious effects. Another (Kimura, 1983; cited in Watterson 1993) "concluded that, for four different species and averaging over a substantial number of loci, approximately 14% of mutations are neutral, the rest being deleterious." (Though I don't understand the maths in the paper, they claim that Kimura's numbers were incorrect. If someone understands the rest, please let me know with what they came up with.)
This is in stark contrast with Doniger et al. (2008), who suggest that "12% of coding and 7% of noncoding SNPs are deleterious". Another study (2004) found that about 9% of mutations were beneficial, 30% are neutral, 35% are deleterious and 26% are lethal. As for the beneficial mutations, the authors were surprised at how many beneficial mutations they found here (they expected far less) because "it is generally accepted that beneficial effects are ≈1,000-fold less common that neutral and deleterious ones". (Keightley and Lynch, 2003; Orr, 2003; Miralles et al. 1999)

You should now be able to appreciate the scope of the problem: We simply don't know exactly how big the proportion deleterious/neutral/beneficial is.
Here's the crux though: We know that the number of deleterious mutations isn't so large as

Now let's see what happens when we introduce these mutations into a system. Let's operate in a very simplistic framework first where only one mutation happens.
I already explained above that roughly 25% of mutations are lethal, so they're taken out of the gene pool more or less immediately. The rest is slightly more difficult: Exactly how deleterious is the mutation, how beneficial is the other? There's a lot of things we'd need to consider to estimate the selection coefficient. It's of course far easier in retrospect, where all one needs is the relative numbers of the organisms.



But again, let's imagine that we know the selection coefficient. Now we have another problem: Is the gene recessive or dominant? Recessive genes take longer to be eliminated. For the sake of argument, favouring your position, let's use a recessive gene with a relatively low selection coefficient (SC) of s=0.01. Starting off at generation 0 with a frequency of A=0.01 (dominant gene) and a=0.99, after 800 generations we're left with A=0.72 and a=0.28. A higher SC of 0.05 with otherwise identical starting parameters would give A=0.97 and a=0.03.

Now it gets interesting: Using everything I've explained above, how do populations fare?
First, let's look at an experiment using artificial selection first. In 1968, experimenters took maize seeds and divided them up into two populations. In one population, they selected for high oil content, in the other for low oil content. After a mere 80 generations, pop1 had an oil content close to 0%, pop2 had one close to 19%.

But that's artificial selection, you protest. Fair enough. The Lenski experiment should be well known by now. The E. coli bacteria evolved for over 34,000 generations (in 2008, we're much further along now) and suddenly, around generation 33,000, they noticed that one population had suddenly become even more fit (denser) than other populations. Not only by a bit, but actually more than 5x as dense as other populations. That's a rather dramatic increase in fitness actually witnessed in an experiment.
In addition, all other populations increased their fitness to some extent, though none as dramatically as Ara-3.
This is an actual, experimentally controlled example of "mutation + NS (and other factors) = improvement" or rather "increased information", however you want to phrase that. That's not mere guesswork, that's absolutely proven.

But you want to see a mathematical model, you say. Possibly one where predation plays a role. Very well. cdk007 has a video explaining exactly what I've tried to explain in so many words. Sadly, I can't get the code for the calculations so I'll very quickly report his results and then move on to other simulations where I know the formulae used.
As I explained above, the "lethal" mutations are of little problem to evolution because they get deleted immediately. The much larger problem (or rather, supposed problem) is that of deleterious mutations. Let's suppose a population size of 1,000 (determines fixation rate along with selection coefficient using t=(2/s) nl (2Ne) generations), an attrition rate of 0.9 (organisms that die before they mate), a baseline of 1000 generations for the simulation to run, a mutation strength of 0.5 (Meaning the change in an animal's fitness. At an attrition rate of 0.9 and a mutation strength of 0.1, an animal with 1 deleterious mutation has a 91% chance of not surviving to mate) and a deleterious mutation rate of 0.1
Now according to cdk007, the population stabilizes somewhere in the low negative numbers. Change the above numbers and the population stabilizes more or less quickly. Reduce natural selection (mutation rate = 0) and your population decays to nothing. So much for your argument that natural selection + mutation = decay. In actual fact mutation without NS = decay.

None of that factors in beneficial mutation, so cdk007 adds that at the 7:00 mark. 1 beneficial mutation for every 100 deleterious mutations. Result: The population not only stabilizes, it actually evolves to become more fit. But that's not a realistic calculation because we've already seen above that beneficial mutations are about 1000 times less common than harmful ones, so we should move closer to the 1:1000 mark. Cdk007 does just that! He lowers the numbers to have 1:10000 beneficial to deleterious mutations, so far lower or rather pessimistic values than one would find in nature. Now according to his calculations, the population still becomes more fit!

As I explained above however, cdk007 is "merely" a YouTuber (I believe he holds some degree in biology, but that's hardly sufficient) so we'll move on to other, rather more scientific sources.
Nilsson and Pelger (1994) wrote a rather famous paper on the time it takes to evolve an eye. Using the formula in heritability with response to selection R=h²S where S=i V m and using a normal value h²=0.5 rather pessimistic values of i=0.01 and V=0.01, you get a mean generation time of roughly 363,000 generations. In small aquatic animals, which this calculation refers to, you'd have a fully functioning eye of human complexity in about 400,000 years. The paper includes a total of 8 stages which might be reached before, so there's a clear, evolutionary pathway.

You might challenge that there's again no selection factored in. That's correct, just look at the vast number of parameters they've had to factor in here alone. We need to move slowly...
Image

This is the formula for selection on a diallelic autosomal locus. Note the formula for the Hardy-Weinberg-Equilibrium in the denominator. The formula comes straight out of the Populus handbook (Download for the software here), which gives Falconer and Kimura (the people referenced by basically all of the papers I cited) as references. That's just part of what's used to calculate the genotypic frequency (of wAA, wAa and waa), but basically that's it.

In that formula, change the parameter h (dominance of A over a, see how this links in with what I explained above?) to a higher value and wAA will take longer to become fixed. Change the selection parameter s from its initial value of 0.1 to a stronger selective value (s=0.15) and wAA will become fixed more quickly, change it to a lower value and it will become fixed less quickly. Using very low values of s (0.001) and a normal value of h (0.5, also not the same as the h above), we can still see that the relative abundance of wAA increases while waa decreases. (The software is simply too weak to factor in enough generations to make this point absolutely clear. However, the levels increase enough to be noticeable even to people with eye problems.)
This is mathematical proof using numbers experienced in the field (note, the first paragraph!) that your comment was completely wrong.

The calculations become vastly more complex as you add more variables. I hope you fully comprehend how difficult it is to explain why you're wrong to someone who doesn't even get the first thing right. You made one incorrect statement four words long and my reply, an extremely basic one at that, is over 1500 words long. That's why we want to be clear about all the definitions first: Because every small mistake leads to a post of similar proportions. Show some consideration!
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Tue May 20, 2014 10:55 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

creationist wrote:Ra won't reply to this but maybe someone else can fill me in.

Which gene(s) codes for teeth in dinosaurs and which gene(s) code for teeth in chickens? And sources please.


That is a stupid question, Chickens are Dinosaurs, in the same way humans are apes and snakes are lizards.

If modern chickens evolved from ancient dinosaurs, then Their teeth are obviously coded by the same genes.
Tue May 20, 2014 11:13 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Thank you, dandan, for finally posting the paper.

The paper is from 2009 (published 2010), so it's slightly dated.

One thing I tend to do when faced with any paper is to check if it's been cited by anyone since publication and see what they say about the research - in this case, copy the title, right-click in Firefox, and "Search for ... in Google".

And sure enough a number of people (187) have cited it since - here's one (2012) as a example:

Rates and Fitness Consequences of New Mutations in Humans

Interestingly, he disagrees with Lynch.

So, where does that put the claim that deletions outnumber insertions?

Here's another (2012), which explores what the lower mutation rates mean for dating divergences between humans and other apes:

Revising the human mutation rate: implications for understanding human evolution

And here's another (2014) exploring the discrepancies between insertion-favouring versus deletion-favouring models, the need for caution and further research to identify mutation hotspots:

Strong Heterogeneity in Mutation Rate Causes Misleading Hallmarks of Natural Selection on Indel Mutations in the Human Genome

Kindest regards,

James


Does any of your papers refutes my premise? Does any of them states that mutations that destroy information are less frequent than does who increase it?
Tue May 20, 2014 11:30 pm
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

I'll have to add a wee bit, because this is even more frightful than I thought.

dandan wrote:Quotes from the article


Now I may be wrong here, but I think the article is suggesting something vastly different than what you think it's suggesting. Let's take your third quote: It's ripped completely out of context. This is the full quote:
Thus, with a complete relaxation of natural selection, the expected decline in fitness associated with mutations in coding DNA alone appears to be on the order of 1% to 3% per generation.


Note how you left out the "complete relaxation of natural selection"? The most important bit of the article is, in my opinion, this:

For example, fetal mortality has declined by approximately 99% in England since the 1500s (52), and just since 1975, the mortality rate per diagnosed cancer has declined by approximately 20% in the United States population (53). Because most complex traits in humans have very high heritabilities (54), the concern then is that unique aspects of human culture, religion, and other social interactions with well intentioned short-term benefits will eventually lead to the long-term genetic deterioration of the human gene pool. Of course, a substantial fraction of the human population still has never visited a doctor of any sort, never eaten processed food, and never used an automobile, computer, or cell phone, so natural selection on unconditionally deleterious mutations certainly has not been completely relaxed in humans. But it is hard to escape the conclusion that we are progressively moving in this direction.


The results are fairly clear: Humans go to doctors, therefore natural selection does not weed out deleterious mutations. If deleterious mutations are not selected against, they will spread through a population by the most simple laws of population mechanics I have explained above. Far from confirming your position, he's actually strongly arguing for natural selection!

dandan wrote:Do you accept that mutations that deteriorate are more frequent than does who create new information?
...
IF yes then you have to accept the conclusion that genomes deteriorate as time passes.


Yes, that's absolutely true. As I pointed out above, deleterious mutations are about 1000 times more common than beneficial ones. That doesn't follow from the paper you cited, but never mind.
The point you do not take into consideration is natural selection and beneficial mutations. As I showed above beyond the shadow of a doubt, beneficial mutations will get fixed in a population given large enough populations, moderate selective pressures and a variety of other factors. This is why your "IF yes" is absolutely misguided.

creationist wrote:Which gene(s) codes for teeth in dinosaurs and which gene(s) code for teeth in chickens? And sources please.


Here you go. I'll find the rest of the source tomorrow.
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Tue May 20, 2014 11:42 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 565Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Baggi wrote:I posit that you're the one who doesn't understand evolution. That OFNF understands it better than you do.
Yeah, the guy who didn't even know evolution had a definition, much less what it is, and he still can't describe it correctly. He must understand evolution better than the guy who has to explain what evolution is.

Thus your endless questions.
They're not endless; I just have to keep repeating them three times each, because he keeps trying to ignore them. Then he changes his answers so that one minute he says he agrees with dandan, in that he accepts natural selection and allelic variance, which he says 'all' creationists do, and then he changes his answer so that he doesn't even accept microevolution anymore. What am I to do with that?

You can't ever move on to proving evolution. Not that you won't, you can't. Because you're unable to. So you have to play this game of pretending like you're the smartest person in the room and woe is you, no one understands you.
I would not dare pretend to be smarter than the regulars in this forum! See, the thing about scientists is that they don't care who's 'side' you're on; if you get the facts wrong, they're gonna jump on you for it.

Kudos to dandan for correcting 'creationist', by the way. In so doing, he demonstrated more knowledge of evolution than any creationist I've ever encountered, and I'm not even exaggerating about that. Regardless whether he believes that, he understands it, and that's what's important.

As a matter of fact, there is plenty of proof that you do not even understand rudimentary science. When OFNF tries to engage you in the science, you are dismissive, because you don't understand it.
Yeah, that's it. That's why I keep challenging all these creationists to debate me. That's why I challenged Ken Ham to debate me; because I'm hoping that merely bluffing all these people will work forever. I didn't do two extensive video playlists proving my point, and they weren't featured on science websites. I must have just imagined all that, because I don't know anymore about evolution than the guy who can't even tell me what evolution is.

As for the rest and the insistence that he answer your questions? Nonsense. Either accept the challenge or say you thought the challenge was something else and you can't do his challenge for reasons of blah blah blah. Whatever you want to make up that makes you feel better in the morning.
After having thousands of in-depth arguments on this topic over the last couple decades, the biggest hurdle I've ever encountered is how to hold the creationist accountable, because incredulity is a requirement of their position. I know you don't understand my strategy, but at least understand that I am adhering to the challenge he accepted, which was this:
I can give you the answer you're looking for, but first you'll have to be educated enough to understand your own question. ....I will prove to your satisfaction that evolution is actually factual and have you concede that I have. ....But I will not submit any work for you to simply ignore and dismiss misunderstood and unconsidered. I will only explain this in a two-way conversation, right here in this thread, because I want to make sure you understand what I'm saying, and that you acknowledge each point as we progress.
So bitch all you want to, but I'm keeping my end of this contract.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Tue May 20, 2014 11:47 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3214Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Greetings,

Although Aron beat me to it - I must have missed it earlier - I'd like to add my applause for dandan pointing out creationist's error.

dandan wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Thank you, dandan, for finally posting the paper.

The paper is from 2009 (published 2010), so it's slightly dated.

One thing I tend to do when faced with any paper is to check if it's been cited by anyone since publication and see what they say about the research - in this case, copy the title, right-click in Firefox, and "Search for ... in Google".

And sure enough a number of people (187) have cited it since - here's one (2012) as a example:

Rates and Fitness Consequences of New Mutations in Humans

Interestingly, he disagrees with Lynch.

So, where does that put the claim that deletions outnumber insertions?

Here's another (2012), which explores what the lower mutation rates mean for dating divergences between humans and other apes:

Revising the human mutation rate: implications for understanding human evolution

And here's another (2014) exploring the discrepancies between insertion-favouring versus deletion-favouring models, the need for caution and further research to identify mutation hotspots:

Strong Heterogeneity in Mutation Rate Causes Misleading Hallmarks of Natural Selection on Indel Mutations in the Human Genome

Kindest regards,

James


Does any of your papers refutes my premise? Does any of them states that mutations that destroy information are less frequent than does who increase it?

As Inferno has pointed out, you appear to have not understood what the paper you cited was saying, and - with all due respect - to add to that failure, your question implies you either haven't read and/or understood what the three articles I cited said.

Did you actually read any of them?

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Last edited by Dragan Glas on Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed May 21, 2014 12:20 am
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:Lest see what real science has to say:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.long

Emphasis mine. I couldn't let this slide. I love this! In your view the only "real science" is science that agrees with your worldview. I can give you over 750.000 on the topic of evolution and confirming the theory, but I guess that's not real science is it?

Seriously, if you have some evidence against the ToE, please provide it because it would certainly win you a Nobel Prize. You guys act like we worship the theory. I can't give 2 shits about the theory, it's just the best explanation we have to explain biodiversity, if you have a better one that fits most or all of the data please provide it. If someone proposes a better one I would accept that theory and I bet you whatever amount of money that I have that practically everyone here will do to. In contrast to what you guys think, we are not indoctrinated into believing anything. We are thought how to think, not what to think. Critical thinking, thinking outside the box, knowing there's not one way that leads to Rome, being able to connect dozens of dots of data. My professors gave us papers to read and asked us to critically analyse them, not to read them and believe everything they say no matter what OR ELSE!!! Have you ever been to college? Do you guys have any scientific background? How the fuck do you know how we are taught things? Hearsay? There is a reason "creation science" or ID isn't published in actual science journals; IT'S GODDAMN BULLSHIT!! It all comes down to you guys being conspiracy theorists, as if the entire scientific community are a bunch of god hating atheists that want to screw you guys over while in fact a large part of them are Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc. Or did they fell for the big atheists conspiracy too (queue spooky music)?

You guys act all high and mighty as if you know the first thing about what you're talking about. I'm sorry but you Dunning-Kruger motherscratchers can go phuk yourselves. The arrogance you guys have to tell some of the brightest people on the planet how to do their jobs and act like they're a bunch of dumb fucks who didn't think of the asinine bullshit you guys come with. I guess my many years at university meant nothing. Let's apply the same to all other professions and see what will happen to the world. "Just read some stuff on the internet! Here's a scalpel, there's your patient, have fun!" You guys use actual peer reviewed research to try and show what you say is worth anything but you would dismiss those same scientists in a heartbeat if it conflicted with your creationist worldview. I've seen this double standard so many times and I'm sick of it.

Can you tell that I'm pissed of? This is just what everybody else thinks but are to polite to tell you.

There!

p.s. I noticed that more people are fed up with this bullcrap. They just have the patience to actually tell you why it is bullcrap. I'm taking the Richard Dawkins approach: acknowledge the bullcrap, be pissed about it, laugh about it and know that discussing it is futile.
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Wed May 21, 2014 12:24 am
WWW
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3214Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Greetings,

DutchLiam84 wrote:
dandan wrote:Lest see what real science has to say:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.long

Emphasis mine. I couldn't let this slide. I love this! In your view the only "real science" is science that you believe agrees with your worldview.

I think that that's a more accurate portrayal of their position, DutchLiam84.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Wed May 21, 2014 12:54 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3508Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

creationist wrote:HEY RA I know you're scared to reply to me and I completely understand why but answer just this one thing.

You said

Wrong. As I have already explained to you, mutations do not 'destroy' information.


Then how do you explain deletion mutations? What do actual deletions in the genome do to it? Why is that not a loss of information? How is that not a deterioration of the genome?

I'm really really struggling to wrap my brain around this dishonest rationalization of yours. Please explain. Feel free to look up 'deletion mutation' in case you don't know what they are. I don't know of a video I can link for you.


AronRa already answered this:

AronRa wrote:
dandan wrote:Ok, so please answer unambiguously; if I prove to you that mutations that destroy information are more frequent than those who create new information would you reject evolution yes or no?
As I have already proven, mutations do not 'destroy' 'information'. At best that would be a matter of interpretation, and would have no impact on evolution even if I accepted your interpretation. For example, one of the dysfunctional primate genes still in the human genome is a mutation that disabled out ability to synthesize vitamin C. This defect is shared with all other apes too. Consequently every ape species needs to eat citrus fruits or succumb to scurvy. If it should be that we call that mutation 'destroyed information', how would that in any way negate what we know about our evolution? How would you explain that defect in the primate genome?


(Emphasis added)

Next time, try reading for comprehension.

creationist wrote:Here's the real reason I ask. I do a lot of work for a local university in my area. Others have asked about this earlier so here's your answer. Because of my relationship with the faculty there they allow me to look up and read the papers that are cited from PLOS and such. Other's I just outright buy. $10 or $20 for a paper is nothing, it helps the people that wrote it, and thanks them for their work. I don't always agree with their conclusions but on the whole their science within the paper is good.


:facepalm:

Journals owned by PloS are open access. I hope your relationship with your local universities faculty does not include them paying you in open access journals. Second, buying a subscription to a journal or paying for a single article from a journal does not help the author(s) of said paper; it helps the journal. I would expect anyone that actually keeps up with the latest news from science to understand both of those facts. Stating ignorance like this casts doubt on your story.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed May 21, 2014 1:43 am
YIM WWW
Dave B.Posts: 119Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:13 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

DutchLiam84 wrote:
dandan wrote:Lest see what real science has to say:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.long

Emphasis mine. I couldn't let this slide. I love this! In your view the only "real science" is science that agrees with your worldview. I can give you over 750.000 on the topic of evolution and confirming the theory, but I guess that's not real science is it?

Seriously, if you have some evidence against the ToE, please provide it because it would certainly win you a Nobel Prize. You guys act like we worship the theory. I can't give 2 shits about the theory, it's just the best explanation we have to explain biodiversity, if you have a better one that fits most or all of the data please provide it. If someone proposes a better one I would accept that theory and I bet you whatever amount of money that I have that practically everyone here will do to. In contrast to what you guys think, we are not indoctrinated into believing anything. We are thought how to think, not what to think. Critical thinking, thinking outside the box, knowing there's not one way that leads to Rome, being able to connect dozens of dots of data. My professors gave us papers to read and asked us to critically analyse them, not to read them and believe everything they say no matter what OR ELSE!!! Have you ever been to college? Do you guys have any scientific background? How the fuck do you know how we are taught things? Hearsay? There is a reason "creation science" or ID isn't published in actual science journals; IT'S GODDAMN BULLSHIT!! It all comes down to you guys being conspiracy theorists, as if the entire scientific community are a bunch of god hating atheists that want to screw you guys over while in fact a large part of them are Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc. Or did they fell for the big atheists conspiracy too (queue spooky music)?

You guys act all high and mighty as if you know the first thing about what you're talking about. I'm sorry but you Dunning-Kruger motherscratchers can go phuk yourselves. The arrogance you guys have to tell some of the brightest people on the planet how to do their jobs and act like they're a bunch of dumb fucks who didn't think of the asinine bullshit you guys come with. I guess my many years at university meant nothing. Let's apply the same to all other professions and see what will happen to the world. "Just read some stuff on the internet! Here's a scalpel, there's your patient, have fun!" You guys use actual peer reviewed research to try and show what you say is worth anything but you would dismiss those same scientists in a heartbeat if it conflicted with your creationist worldview. I've seen this double standard so many times and I'm sick of it.

Can you tell that I'm pissed of? This is just what everybody else thinks but are to polite to tell you.

There!

p.s. I noticed that more people are fed up with this bullcrap. They just have the patience to actually tell you why it is bullcrap. I'm taking the Richard Dawkins approach: acknowledge the bullcrap, be pissed about it, laugh about it and know that discussing it is futile.

Well... fucking... said!

I used to waste my time arguing with these nitwits but I've got better things to do... like clean up the dog shit in my backyard.

Until I hear a creationist argument that I haven't heard and / or refuted before I will refrain from such discussions. As Scott, Dawkins and others have said... you're only granting their position legitimacy by arguing with them. And I ain't convinced yet that 95% of them aren't poes.
Wed May 21, 2014 1:45 am
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

DRAGAN[
quote]As Inferno has pointed out, you appear to have not understood what the paper you cited was saying, and - with all due respect - to add to that failure, your question implies you either haven't read and/or understood what the three articles I cited said.

Did you actually read any of them?

Kindest regards,

James [/quote]

Dragan/Inferno

The whole point of posting that article is to prove this single premise

Mutations that destroy information are more frequent than those who create it.
Do you accept this premise or no?

Is there anything in any of your articles that suggests that this premise is wrong? You are correct, I did not read the articles, that is why I am asking.
Wed May 21, 2014 2:06 am
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:DRAGAN[
quote]As Inferno has pointed out, you appear to have not understood what the paper you cited was saying, and - with all due respect - to add to that failure, your question implies you either haven't read and/or understood what the three articles I cited said.

Did you actually read any of them?

Kindest regards,

James


Dragan/Inferno

The whole point of posting that article is to prove this single premise

Mutations that destroy information are more frequent than those who create it.
Do you accept this premise or no?

Is there anything in any of your articles that suggests that this premise is wrong? You are correct, I did not read the articles, that is why I am asking.[/
Wed May 21, 2014 2:07 am
Darkprophet232User avatarPosts: 226Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:42 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:You are correct, I did not read the articles, that is why I am asking.


Because reading is hard and ignorance is easy.
“The man who believes that the secrets of the world are forever hidden lives in mystery and fear. Superstition will drag him down." -The Judge
Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Wed May 21, 2014 2:08 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3214Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Greetings,

dandan wrote:
As Inferno has pointed out, you appear to have not understood what the paper you cited was saying, and - with all due respect - to add to that failure, your question implies you either haven't read and/or understood what the three articles I cited said.

Did you actually read any of them?

Kindest regards,

James


Dragan/Inferno

The whole point of posting that article is to prove this single premise

As Inferno noted, it doesn't prove the premise.

dandan wrote:Mutations that destroy information are more frequent than those who create it.
Do you accept this premise or no?

Is there anything in any of your articles that suggests that this premise is wrong? You are correct, I did not read the articles, that is why I am asking.[/

Read the articles, please.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Wed May 21, 2014 2:18 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 14 of 49
 [ 977 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests