Post Reply
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The first falsehood
3 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2012 - 11:35AM #1
rsielin
Posts: 4,517

Once you fall hook line and sinker for the falsehood that the Bible and all its scripture is inerrant and literal truth, you are forced into a life time of lies, distortions and misrepresentations.


No creationist has ever found fault with an accurate representation of the scientific theory. It’s always with some silly misrepresentation or outright lie. The question for us is, are creationists willingly and deliberately distorting the evidence, facts and it’s compelling explanatory theory for their purposes, or are they mentally no longer capable of grasping (or never were capable of grasping) a notion even so mindboggling simple that it is taught to children as young as 9 or 10.


You simply cannot be a creationist unless you ignore and deny all of the major findings in every field of science for the last one hundred and fifty years. With that in mind, how can any of these clowns even have the audacity to suggest that what they are doing is in any way shape or form moral and honest.

Thus for creationism, it all begins with swallowing and then believing that first lie, and nothing can break those brainwashed shackles thereafter. They're doomed to a life of lies, misrepresentation, dishonesty and fakery for the remaining of their natural lives. 

 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2012 - 11:56AM #2
amcolph
Posts: 17,634

It's simple.  When considered as a set of facts about objective reality, the divinely revealed literal and inerrant scriptures are truer than anything we can learn through observation.


Scientists might be wrong--as scientists themselves freely admit--but God Almighty cannot be wrong.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2012 - 1:33PM #3
57
Posts: 23,420

Apr 15, 2012 -- 11:35AM, rsielin wrote:


Once you fall hook line and sinker for the falsehood that the Bible and all its scripture is inerrant and literal truth, you are forced into a life time of lies, distortions and misrepresentations.


No creationist has ever found fault with an accurate representation of the scientific theory. It’s always with some silly misrepresentation or outright lie. The question for us is, are creationists willingly and deliberately distorting the evidence, facts and it’s compelling explanatory theory for their purposes, or are they mentally no longer capable of grasping (or never were capable of grasping) a notion even so mindboggling simple that it is taught to children as young as 9 or 10.


You simply cannot be a creationist unless you ignore and deny all of the major findings in every field of science for the last one hundred and fifty years. With that in mind, how can any of these clowns even have the audacity to suggest that what they are doing is in any way shape or form moral and honest.

Thus for creationism, it all begins with swallowing and then believing that first lie, and nothing can break those brainwashed shackles thereafter. They're doomed to a life of lies, misrepresentation, dishonesty and fakery for the remaining of their natural lives. 

 




despite that....you still can't explain how mutations add up.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2012 - 2:08PM #4
McAtheist
Posts: 8,254

57: despite that....you still can't explain how mutations add up.


Is that some kind of problem for the Theory of Evolution?  Gosh, why don't you post an example from the real world demonstrating your claim?  Let's see what numbers and science you are working from to come up with such a claim.


I mean, you DID work from specific, real data to formulate this claim, right, 57?  You wouldn't just be mindlessly parroting some whack job creationist site, right?


So, let's see how you came to your conclusion.


We'll wait right here.


Cool

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2012 - 3:00PM #5
d_p_m
Posts: 9,983

Apr 15, 2012 -- 1:33PM, 57 wrote:


despite that....you still can't explain how mutations add up.




Still avoiding the explanations given to you, 57?


==========================================








Previous count update/post 2012/03/25... Today is 2012/04/15





I'll stand in for him!


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Recall please that the numbers show how many times this information has been posted for 57's benefit.  Feel free to use all or part to continue to educate him.





31/21/20/14/14/13/10 <==== counts of number of times of 'presentation to 57' for each differenet explanation in a sub-part of this message


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dec 27, 2010 -- 3:13PM, d_p_m wrote:

Dec 26, 2010 -- 1:57PM, d_p_m wrote:

What part of 'every codon in the human genome is mutated every 20 years or less' have you
forgotten?

I've replied to that SEVERAL times but you just seem to keep forgetting.


Not with anything based in fact and logic.

[author=33443027 post=479376853]

Q)...HOW MANY OF THEM WILL BE BENEFICIAL?

A)...probably none. Sooooooooooo what's your point?


So nice of you to invent an answer for us. Fortunately it is
incorrect. You claim that there are no favourable mutations.
To falsify that all I have to do is point to one favourable human
mutation. I am not a geneticist, but I can point to several off the top
of my head.



1.Fair skin – an adaptation to northern latitudes.
2.Laplanders possess a mutation that allows their core body temperature
to drop without catastrophic hypothermia.
3.The recently discovered 'plague immunity gene' of European origin.
4.Adult lactose tolerance, European.
5.Adult lactose tolerance, African (different mutation, same effect)
6.Adult lactose tolerance (third mutation, same effect)
7.APO1 Milano, which confers immunity to bad effects of dietary
cholesterol Of course there are a myriad of others,
but that's enough that your assertion goes down in flames.

[author=33443027 post=479376853]

Oh, and if there just so happens to be two...what are the odds of them
effecting the same trait?



Oh, good! Let's do the math! Humans have about 3 x 10^9 base
pairs in their genome, encoding 2 – 2.5 x 10^4 proteins.
Protein coding represents about 1.5 x 10^-2 of the genome, with maybe .8
of it given over to regulatory code. Thus the average protein is coded
for by about 4.5 x 10^7 / 2.5 x 10^4 = 1800 codons. Now, more than one
protein is involved in any part of the body. Let's call it 10, thus coded
for by 18000 codons, on the average. In addition, gene expression is regulated
by roughly 2.7 x 10^9 codons. Let's assume that a similar proportion of
regulatory DNA is involved as protein DNA. Let us also assume that only
one regulatory area affects each protein... so we are looking at 1/2500
of the regulatory code... about 2.7 x 10^9 / 2.5 x 10^3 or roughly 10^6
codons. Thus the total codons involved in one of your ill-defined traits
is about 10^6 + 1.8 x 10^3, which is 10^6 codons. Now, each codon in the
human genome is mutated every 20 years, so each 'trait' (whatever that
is) is mutated 10^6 times every 20 years. We also know that the fixation rate
of neutral mutations is about 10^-5, so about 10 changes to any 'trait'
(sic) will be fixed each generation. Once that happens sexual
reproduction and continuing mutation both guarantee that the same 'trait'
(sic) will be the subject of multiple neutral mutations. Of course, any beneficial
mutations will fix more often, and spread more rapidly and thus add up
more rapidly. PS... on the rapid spread of beneficial mutations - note that
adult lactose tolerance is found in .98 of people in some of the Northern
European populations in only 10,000 years. The proportion is about .75
among the Fulani people in the Sahel, .... since domesticated cattle
reached this area just a couple of millennia ago.





AND THIS


Feb 5, 2011 -- 4:22PM, rsielin wrote:




This creationists shares the common *cdesign proponentsist*
misconceptions that genes are created de novo and that the odds of
randomly constructing an entire functioning gene from scratch are in some
way relevant to a debate over evolution. They aren’t, and they aren’t.
Evolution doesn’t work by building new genes for new proteins very often.
It works by sequentially modifying existing genes and proteins. It’s not
the odds of getting a specific sequence in isolation; it’s the odds of
getting a sequence that works. And working means interacting and
expression with the all other sequences that are present.


More about adding information:


McAtheist
Posts: 3,716
   

me: Still waiting for the  usually vocal YEC squad to present the YEC
explanation for why the  addition of a partial or complete second 21st
chromosome (Down's syndrome) is NOT adding new information?
Still waiting for the  usually vocal YEC squad to present the YEC
explanation for why the  addition of a partial or complete second 21st
chromosome (Down's syndrome) is NOT adding new information?
You YEC guys keep dodging that one.(And yes, we know it isn't a
beneficial mutation, but it IS an addition of info.)Well?
What's your problem, 57?  Where is the YEc explanation?



57: How do you figure?



How do you NOT figure?

It's one of those basic math concepts that I just assumed (erroneously,
evidently) that everyone posting here understood: 2 > 1.
The only real question is how the YEC team is going to try to wriggle out
of their obvious problem --- a mutation that adds an entire new
chromosome to a person's genome can not be doing anything except adding
information.

The YEC claim is that mutations don't add information.  The mutation for
Down's syndrome adds a complete or partial chromosome.Therefore, the YEC
claim is provably wrong:  mutations can --- and obviously do --- add
genetic information.

This is where the YEC team either ponies up evidence showing Down's
syndrome isn't accompanied by a full or partial extra 21st chromosome or
the YEC team admits that their claim about mutations not adding
information is complete crap.

If the YEC team is unable to grasp the concept of 2 > 1, then obviously
the YEC team is unable to grasp any part of the more complicated aspects
of any mainstream math or science, like addition.

So, 57 --- yes or no --- does the mutation responsible for Down's
syndrome, which adds a complete or partial 21st chromosome, add genetic
information?

Yes or no, dude?




Original quote here: 

community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/4...

roves_Evolution?pg=142

and of course here's a whole thread dedicated to the subject:
community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/4...

hematical_basis_of_mutations_dont_add_up

community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/4...

k_up_their_claims_----_beneficial_mutational_math

And here's the mutation rate...

1. Humans each have on the average about 129 mutations (quoted figures
from various sources lie between about 125 and 135 mutations per
individual).

 

2. A more general metric, applicable from everything from E coli to
humans is that the overall error rate during DNA replication is 10^-10
nucleotides per replication. In order to get the mutations per
generation, look up the size of the organisms genome, and apply the post
repair mutation factor of 10^-10.

Thus for E coli, the estimate goes like this:

"Our model bacterium is Esherichia coli the common, and mostly  benign,
intestinal bacterium. The entire genome was sequenced in 1997  (Blattner
et al., 1997) and its size is 4,200,000 base pairs (4.2 × 106 bp). Every
time a bacterium divides this amount of DNA has to be replicated; that’s
8,400,000 nucleotides (8.4 × 106).

* * *

This means one mutation, on average, every 1200 replications (8.4 × 106 ×
1200 is about ten billion). This may not seem like much even if the
average generation time of E. coli is 24 hours. It would seem to take
four months for each mutation. But  bacteria divide exponentially so the
actual rate of mutation in a  growing culture is much faster. Each cell
produces two daughter cells so  that after two generations there are four
cells and after three  generations there are eight cells. It takes only
eleven generations to  get 2048 cells (211 = 2048). At that point you
have 2048  cells dividing and the amount of DNA that is replication in
the entire  population is enough to ensure at least one error every
generation."

"I based my estimate of mutation rate on what we know about the 
properties of the replisome and repair enzymes. Independent measures of 
mutation rates in bacteria are consistent with this estimate. For 
example, the measured value for E. coli is 5.4 × 10-10 per nucleotide per
replication (Drake et al., 1998). Many of these  mutations are expected
to be neutral. The rate of fixation of neutral  mutations is equal to the
mutation rate so by measuring the accumulation  of neutral mutations in
various lineages of bacteria you can estimate  the mutation rate provided
you know the time of divergence and the  generation time. (Ochman et al.,
1999) have estimated that the mutation  rate in bacteria is close to
10-10 assuming that bacteria divide infrequently.

The  mutation rate in eukaryotes should be about the same since the 
properties of the DNA replication machinery are similar to those in 
eukaryotes. Measured values of mutation rates in yeast, Caenorhabditis
elegans, Drosophila melanogaster, mouse and humans are all close to 10^-10

(Drake et al., 1998).

The haploid human genome is about 3 × 109 base pairs in size. Every time
this genome is replicated about 0.3  mutations, on average, will be
passed on to one of the daughter cells.  We are interested in knowing how
many mutations are passed on to the  fertilized egg (zygote) from its
parents. In order to calculate this  number we need to know how many DNA
replications there are between the  time that one parental zygote was
formed and the time that the egg or  sperm cell that unite to form the
progeny zygote are produced.

In  the case of females, this number is about 30, which means that each 
female egg is the product of 30 cell divisions from the time the zygote 
was formed (Vogel and Rathenberg, 1975). Human females have about 500 
eggs. In males, the number of cell divisions leading to mature sperm in a
 30 year old male is about 400 (Vogel and Motulsky, 1997). This means 
that about 9 mutations (0.3 × 30) accumulate in the egg and about 120 
mutations (0.3 × 400) accumulate in a sperm cell. Thus, each newly 
formed human zygote has approximately 129 new spontaneous mutations."

-- sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/mutation-r...

 

 

Now, I'm sure you will 'forget' this too, but don't say we didn't give it
to you.

PS: References: 

    Blattner,F.R., Plunkett,G.,  Bloch,C.A., Perna,N.T., Burland,V.,
Riley,M., ColladoVides,J.,  Glasner,J.D., Rode,C.K., Mayhew,G.F., egor,J., Davis,N.W.,  Kirkpatrick,H.A., Goeden,M.A., Rose,D.J., Mau,B.,
and Shao,Y. (1997) The complete genome sequence of Escherichia coli K-12.
Science 277:1453-1474.

    Drake,J.W., Charlesworth,B., Charlesworth,D., and Crow,J.F. (1998)
Rates of spontaneous mutation. Genetics 148:1667-1686.

    Ochman,H., Elwyn,S., and Moran,N.A. (1999) Calibrating bacterial
evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 96:12638-12643.

    Tago,Y., Imai,M., Ihara,M., Atofuji,H., Nagata,Y., and Yamamoto,K.
(2005) Escherichia coli mutator Delta polA is defective in base mismatch
correction: The nature  of in vivo DNA replication errors. J. Mol. Biol.
351:299-308.

    Vogel,F. and Motulsky,A. (1997) Human Genetics: Problems and
Approaches. (Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag).

    Vogel,F. and Rathenberg,R. (1975) Spontaneous Mutation in Man. Adv.
Hum. Genet. 5:223-318.








Jun 7, 2011 -- 11:16AM, d_p_m wrote:





Jun 6, 2011 -- 10:34PM, 57 wrote:




DPM I noticed you STILL didn't answer the question.

HOW MANY WERE BENEFICIAL????





Once more...

How many times do we have to tell you that 'beneficial' and 'harmful' are
context/environment dependent?

Fair skin is beneficial in Norway, and harmful in the Sudan.

Really, it's not that hard.




community.beliefnet.com/go/post/reply/43...

"e=498178865#post_input



Jun 8, 2011 -- 6:46PM, rsielin wrote:





Jun 8, 2011 -- 3:21PM, 57 wrote:


What percent are considered as
beneficial?  You act like just about every mutation is beneficial.  Then
again it only takes one to turn a fin into a leg. Right?



Right.

Since only 2% of mutations can be harmful, for the remaining 98%,
eventually all be become beneficial given deep time.

Development is regulated through cascades of gene expression with
proteins interacting with DNA, RNA and other proteins in order to create
morphogenic fields that direct development and produce morphological
structures. This has been determined through thousands of careful
experiments involving immunogenetics techniques as well as genetic
engineering and knock out experiments.

I have provided you with references, you have ignored them. Why do you
cling to your ignorance? Why not take the opportunity to educate
yourself?

The notion that all animals are related and share almost all of the same
genes is supported by hundreds of comparative genomic studies. The fact
that differences in morphology arise primarily through changes in
regulatory regions is supported by hundreds of comparative genomic
studies.

You are fifty years behind the times. I would advise you to increase your
knowledge.

One last time. No one cares if you believe it or not. Either provide a
testable alternative, or STFU. You cannot ignore the conclusion of
hundreds of years of research without providing any alternative and
expect anyone to take you seriously. No one cares what you think. Provide
a testable alternative with evidence or accept the consensus of an entire
field of science. Those are your only options.


community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/4...

.?pg=2


Dec 13, 2009 -- 8:57AM, Ridcully wrote:




There have been a number of experiments on evolution in vitro.  Here's my
layman's summary of one by Kramer, et al. (1974 - Journal Of Molecular
Biology).

In this particular study a RNA sequence of 221 nucleotides was allow to
evolve in a series of transfer experiments (moving the molecules from one
environment to another that differs in some way) after being exposed to
ethidium bromide (EtBr).  In essence, the EtBr binds to the RNA making it
more difficult for it to replicate, and thus creating stress for the RNA.
One interesting thing in this case was that since there are a small
number of nucleotides, the researchers can examine the changes that occur
over time at a minute level.  The bottom line is that after a number of
generations, 3 mutations occur that increase the survivability of the
RNA.  Further, the scientists know exactly which 3 nucleotides changed
(say for A to U) and the sequence of the change.

In other words, this is a case where the reserachers could literally
watch the mutatins "add up."

Sorry, but I couldn't find a free link to the research on-line, but any
univerity library should have it I would think.  I got my info on this
research from the book Selection: the mechanism of evolution by Bell,
2008.






Jul 7, 2011 -- 1:14PM, McAtheist wrote:




57: If anyone here can show me where a post has been presented that shows
how mutations could possibly add up...I WILL NEVER POST HERE AGAIN.

Size of dolphin genome: 3 billion base pairs



General rate of mutation: 350 per individual (Evolution, 2005, Douglas
Futuyama)

Rate of beneficial mutations for terrestrial population heading back into
the ocean, ie --- an unfit population: 16% (Understanding the
Evolutionary Fate of Finite Populations: The Dynamics of Mutational
Effects, POLS Biology, Olin K. Silander, Olivier Tenaillon, Lin Chao)
Size of population: 23,000 dolphins are killed by Japan yearly.  Assume
that this represents 5% of the world-wide population, then there are
460,000 animals.

Total number of mutations per generation: 1.61 x 107

Total number of beneficial mutations in the unfit population changing
from terrestrial to marine: (1.61 x 107) x (1.6 X 10-1) = 2.576 x 106 or
around 2.5 million beneficial mutations per generation

Number of generations needed to replace entire genome with beneficial
mutations: 1200

So, every 1200 generations, the entire genome of our proto-dolphin was
replaced by beneficial mutations. The task for you then, 57, is to show
mathematically or using demonstrated biology that this rate is
insufficient to explain the features of today's dolphins.

Remember that natural selection will eliminate deleterious mutations and
fix beneficial mutations in the population --- this aspect of natural
selection has been observed, as with mosquitoes when organophosphate
pesticides were introduced: the mutations for resistance for the new
pesticides spread rapidly and quickly became fixed in those populations
so exposed, even though (one assumes) deleterious mutations were also
occurring.

So, I look forward to you scientifically or mathematically demonstrating
that the above numbers are insufficient to explain the evolution of
dolphins.

And if you can not produce such a demonstration, then I look forward to
reading your farewell post.





community.beliefnet.com/go/post/reply/43...

_Disproves_Creationism"e=501836313#post_input

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0&feat...
Clock vid.  How mutations ADD UP!


"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2012 - 3:23PM #6
57
Posts: 23,420

Why do you keep posting something that has been refuted? 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2012 - 3:31PM #7
d_p_m
Posts: 9,983

Apr 15, 2012 -- 3:23PM, 57 wrote:


Why do you keep posting something that has been refuted? 




Because none of it has been refuted, except in your imagination.


The posts contain pointers to peer reviewed scientific literature that demolishes your attempts to come up with some reason for claiming mutations can't add up. You have never convincingly argued against any of the peer reviewed science.


Instead, you ingnore the evidence, ignore logic, and claim that 'it can't happen, so there!' - which may make you feel better, but does nothing to weaken the scientific proofs for evolution.


Because you can't argue with the science, you are left with unbased derisive comments and blind denial of reality.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2012 - 9:09PM #8
rsielin
Posts: 4,517

Apr 15, 2012 -- 3:23PM, 57 wrote:

Why do you keep posting something that has been refuted?


  Exactly the premise of the OP.  Once you accept the initial falsehood, all you can do is continue to heap lie after ridiculous lie after farfetched lie on the table. We see it on this forum every day and it only took 120 min for it to raise its ugly head on this very thread. 


BTW 57, got that empirical evidence yet that explains the natural nested hierarchy we find in all of life?  You know, the nested hierarchy that is the antithesis of design? Seems like our creationist friend is having a very difficult time with this devastating for YEC fact. LOL 


Moderated by rangerken on Apr 25, 2012 - 12:44AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 24, 2012 - 8:26PM #9
rsielin
Posts: 4,517

Of course education is appropriate answer for this insidious and deceptive first falsehood. We have the evidence and the truth on our side and that should count for something.


But of course we then need to get legitimate science into school curricula and make sure it is actually taught. And of course we then need to emphasize it in college. And of course we then need to reach out to lifelong learning programs and programs for seniors. And of course we should do our best to disseminate the scientific discoveries on which the modern theory stands. And of course we need to work to increase scientific literacy in all areas of our society. 


Unfortunately, even if this strategy is ultimately effective, it might take a very long time. Many children grow up being brainwashed by fundamentalist parents. They are taught from a very early age not to trust science or scientists. They are taught that evolution is a lie and that scientists are trying to fool them (for some unspecified reason). Usually they just shut out any contrary evidence after a certain point and become practically unreachable. I have seen how effective this fundamentalist brainwashing strategy can be.


However, when these kids eventually find out who it was that was really lying to them, some of them still have a capacity to learn. Some of them are intellectually honest enough to admit the truth when confronted with it. Some of them can enlighten themselves to the natural world truth.


There is a big price to pay for dealing all of the lies and deceit from people you trusted, but it does work for some. This seems to me to be the best hope for breaking the cycle of lies. That and working to make sure that the lying hypocrites don’t use the public school system to accomplish their brainwashing.


A wise man once said, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free, it will just hurt a lot. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 24, 2012 - 11:20PM #10
teilhard
Posts: 51,364

And as long as you and others similarly situated cast the Discussion in THOSE Terms, the "Mexican-Stand-Off" of varying World-Views will continue-to-continue ...


Apr 15, 2012 -- 11:35AM, rsielin wrote:


Once you fall hook line and sinker for the falsehood that the Bible and all its scripture is inerrant and literal truth, you are forced into a life time of lies, distortions and misrepresentations.


No creationist has ever found fault with an accurate representation of the scientific theory. It’s always with some silly misrepresentation or outright lie. The question for us is, are creationists willingly and deliberately distorting the evidence, facts and it’s compelling explanatory theory for their purposes, or are they mentally no longer capable of grasping (or never were capable of grasping) a notion even so mindboggling simple that it is taught to children as young as 9 or 10.


You simply cannot be a creationist unless you ignore and deny all of the major findings in every field of science for the last one hundred and fifty years. With that in mind, how can any of these clowns even have the audacity to suggest that what they are doing is in any way shape or form moral and honest.

Thus for creationism, it all begins with swallowing and then believing that first lie, and nothing can break those brainwashed shackles thereafter. They're doomed to a life of lies, misrepresentation, dishonesty and fakery for the remaining of their natural lives. 

 





Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook