Post Reply
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Reality strongly contradicts YECism
2 years ago  ::  Apr 26, 2012 - 11:39PM #1
McAtheist
Posts: 7,901

In order to accept YECism as a scientific/factual/historical model, a person has to reject reality:


1. All the ways of determining the age of the universe and of the Earth show them to be billions of years old, which strongly contradicts young Earth creationism.


2. There isn't a uniform world-wide sedimentary layer and the various and diverse sedimentary deposits around the world date to various and diverse ages, which strongly contradicts YECism.


3. There is no known physical process of flooding that would leave the perfectly sorted arrangement of the fossils found within those various and diverse sediments, which strongly contradicts YECism.


4. There are cities that have been continuously inhabited longer than YECs claim the Earth has existed; there are cultures which existed before, during and after the alleged flood and never noticed it, both of which strongly contradict YECism.


5. There is no known physical process to produce areas like the Hawaiian islands, where every piece of data testifies that they were built in succession over millions of years, which strongly contradicts YECism.


6. There is no physical way to squeeze the advances and retreats of massive glaciers during the Ice Ages into the period between the ark supposedly landing and the beginning of recorded history, which strongly contradicts YECism.


7. There is no known biological process that could breed up robust populations of multiple different species from a single pair and allow for their migration in the extremely limited time between the ark landing and the appearance of these species in human art and history, which strongly contradicts YECism.


8.  The supposed massively accelerated processes required by YECism, like accelerated plate tectonics and accelerated lithification, would leave huge footprints of evidence; super-accelerated lithification would produce sufficient heat to boil away the Earth's ocean, for example.  None of this evidence exists, which strongly contradicts YECism.


Each of these points represents a fatal flaw in YECism; taken together, they clearly demonstrate that the YEC literal reading of Genesis, etc. is wrong.


I don't know how to put it any more clearly: reality itself tells us YECism is wrong.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 1:23AM #2
steven_guy
Posts: 11,739

If the YEC scenario was real, then all the science would be in a state of crisis. Our computers wouldn't function, nor would any other high technology device. Physics, chemistry, geology, genetics, biology, mathematics, palaeontology, cosmology, archeology and anthropology would all be completely wrong and it would appear that the entire universe is a gigantic hoax.


If the YEC scenario really happened, the universe is a very cockamamie place indeed.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 12:17PM #3
MMarcoe
Posts: 15,881

Even some YEC claims contradict YECism. Iama's YEC claim that conserved core processes are the basis of the fixed kinds is contradicted by the very nature of conserved core processes, which allows that they can change (however slowly) over time.


It seems denial is the main river in YEC geography.

There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.

God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 12:26PM #4
lucaspa
Posts: 557

Apr 26, 2012 -- 11:39PM, McAtheist wrote:


In order to accept YECism as a scientific/factual/historical model, a person has to reject reality:



Remember what I've been saying about statements of ultimate reality?  And about stepping outside your own atheism?


In order to accept YEC, a person has to reject God!  She has to reject that God really did create and that what we look at via science (what you call "reality") is God's Creation. 


I don't know how to put it any more clearly: reality itself tells us YECism is wrong.



Try this as "more clearly":  God tells us YEC is wrong!

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."  Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 3:48PM #5
Midutch
Posts: 4,101

Apr 27, 2012 -- 1:23AM, steven_guy wrote:


If the YEC scenario was real, then all the science would be in a state of crisis. Our computers wouldn't function, nor would any other high technology device. Physics, chemistry, geology, genetics, biology, mathematics, palaeontology, cosmology, archeology and anthropology would all be completely wrong and it would appear that the entire universe is a gigantic hoax.


If the YEC scenario really happened, the universe is a very cockamamie place indeed.


If the YEC scenario really happened (with all of the Cosmic laws and rules of nature inconceivably screwed up so we can fit our 13.85 billion year old Cosmos into their 6000 year old "creation" fairy tale story), and all of our science is wrong, then it probably wouldn't be a Cosmos that we would want to live in.

"creationism" ... 2000+ years worth of ABYSMAL FAILURE ... and proud of it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 4:16PM #6
57
Posts: 22,133

Apr 26, 2012 -- 11:39PM, McAtheist wrote:


In order to accept YECism as a scientific/factual/historical model, a person has to reject reality:


1. All the ways of determining the age of the universe and of the Earth show them to be billions of years old, which strongly contradicts young Earth creationism.


2. There isn't a uniform world-wide sedimentary layer and the various and diverse sedimentary deposits around the world date to various and diverse ages, which strongly contradicts YECism.


3. There is no known physical process of flooding that would leave the perfectly sorted arrangement of the fossils found within those various and diverse sediments, which strongly contradicts YECism.


4. There are cities that have been continuously inhabited longer than YECs claim the Earth has existed; there are cultures which existed before, during and after the alleged flood and never noticed it, both of which strongly contradict YECism.


5. There is no known physical process to produce areas like the Hawaiian islands, where every piece of data testifies that they were built in succession over millions of years, which strongly contradicts YECism.


6. There is no physical way to squeeze the advances and retreats of massive glaciers during the Ice Ages into the period between the ark supposedly landing and the beginning of recorded history, which strongly contradicts YECism.


7. There is no known biological process that could breed up robust populations of multiple different species from a single pair and allow for their migration in the extremely limited time between the ark landing and the appearance of these species in human art and history, which strongly contradicts YECism.


8.  The supposed massively accelerated processes required by YECism, like accelerated plate tectonics and accelerated lithification, would leave huge footprints of evidence; super-accelerated lithification would produce sufficient heat to boil away the Earth's ocean, for example.  None of this evidence exists, which strongly contradicts YECism.


Each of these points represents a fatal flaw in YECism; taken together, they clearly demonstrate that the YEC literal reading of Genesis, etc. is wrong.


I don't know how to put it any more clearly: reality itself tells us YECism is wrong.




There is no known way mutations can add up.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 4:20PM #7
rsielin
Posts: 4,182

Apr 27, 2012 -- 4:16PM, 57 wrote:

There is no known way mutations can add up.


Said without wearing a stitch of evidence.  LOL.


I'll pass and go with the evidence.


BTW, wha cha got on that devastating evidence that all life fits into a natural nested hierarchy? You know, the antithesis of any kind of design. Caught intellectually flat footed again? ROTFLMAO


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 4:35PM #8
EarthScientist
Posts: 3,444

Apr 27, 2012 -- 4:16PM, 57 wrote:

I don't understand anything about mutations




So true buddy Cool

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 4:41PM #9
MMarcoe
Posts: 15,881

Apr 27, 2012 -- 4:16PM, 57 wrote:


There is no known way mutations can add up.





You are always claiming that the "odds" are too great for mutations to add up. Well, isn't God more powerful than the odds? Can't God make mutations add up? Isn't that part of his job?

There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.

God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 6:23PM #10
d_p_m
Posts: 9,612

Apr 27, 2012 -- 4:16PM, 57 wrote:


57: There is no known way mutations can add up.




Except, of course, all the science that says they do, and how they do it, which you should really remember by now.


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








Previous count update/post 2012/04/15... Today is 2012/04/27





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.





32/22/21/15/15/14/11 <==== 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



"One need only watch a few minutes of any Orphan Black episode to see why Tatiana Maslany deserves to win every acting award available."

    —Mark Rozeman, http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2014/07/18-first-time-emmy-nominees-wed-like-to-see.html?a=1
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook