Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?

[schmidlap]

I don't pretend to know, but I'm content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things:

At least you admit you're a religionist. an atheist religionist, who follows Darwin, i.e. a believer that everything is natural, until we find the laws of physics were broken at the big bang. To the creation scientists, that is definitely not natural. Nor something before the big bang. Your side can't explain the accelerating expanding universe either. Dark energy is definitely not natural.

I just showed how you contradicted yourself saying you are "content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things..."

"

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Certainly an interesting comment.

You seem like a nonsensical fellow, what does what you quoted from Darwin mean to you?

You are free to propound your prejudices, of course.

 

[Weatherman2020]

On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Haha. If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short. They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.

No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true. Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories. Evolution becomes bogus.

That makes no sense.

Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.

I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.

You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.

Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.

 

[james bond]

I don't pretend to know, but I'm content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things:

At least you admit you're a religionist. an atheist religionist, who follows Darwin, i.e. a believer that everything is natural, until we find the laws of physics were broken at the big bang. To the creation scientists, that is definitely not natural. Nor something before the big bang. Your side can't explain the accelerating expanding universe either. Dark energy is definitely not natural.

I just showed how you contradicted yourself saying you are "content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things..."

"

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Certainly an interesting comment.

You seem like a nonsensical fellow, what does what you quoted from Darwin mean to you?

You are free to propound your prejudices, of course.

It's not my prejudice. Is this not a free country? Am I not entitled to believe what I think it's true or reality? The Bible explains quite well the cause and how time began and how space began at the same moment. The clincher is that we find science backs up the Bible when it isn't a science book. I haven't heard anyone who read Darwin make that claim for his two books. I think we find that science does not back him up. Otherwise, your side will be smoking a fat victory cigar,

, rudely of course because atheists have no moral values. They're feces of the Earth.

You didn't answer my question, so I'll just assume you posted your Darwin quote to make you look smart when you aren't.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Be specific.
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

Even though some rabid religionists have raged against Darwinian evolution, it's certainly as viable a notion as claiming that the gods took a fancy to it.

Why does everything exist? I don't pretend to know, but I'm content with religionist Darwin's elegant proposition that it is in the nature of things:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.​

Was your god, Darwin, a "rabid religionist"? After all, you quote "rabid religionist" Darwin who cites "the Creator."

You can't begin to be consistent with your rabid atheism. tsk, tsk

Let's Examine Claims of Atheists

AreAtheistsRight.blogspot.com

 

[ChemEngineer]

You are free to propound your prejudices, of course.

Nobody can stop you from propounding your pathetic ignorance.
But intelligent people can choose to ignore you, and they should.

"Go from the presence of a foolish man." - The Holy Bible, filled with wisdom, beginning with the science in the First Sentence in the First Book, which required scientists 2000 years to prove.

ciao brutto
You just joined others like yourself on my Ignore List

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is done in TINY TINY TINY steps----

You don't understand the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.
Picking the next amino acid to be added to a new protein capable of your daring "selection" must be done from a base of 20 different amino acids of which humans are built. One chance in 20 does not change in one month, or one year or 10,000 years. It's always 1 in 20. Now raise that to the 33,450th power for titin, in your muscles. That's just ONE protein of th 5,000 that make up your body. "Tiny, tiny, tiny" numbers indeed. Equal to 0. No different from 0. Impossible is the word.
Atheist Dawkins himself has defined "impossible" as "one chance in 10 to the 40th power." Again, what is 1/20 to the 33,450? Is is smaller than 1 in 10 to the 40th ya think?

I’m afraid you know nothing other than the silly ID’iot creationer “what are the odds”, slogans.


These nonsensical “the odds are too great” are stereotypical blathering that ooze from all of the fundamentalist creation ministries.

Firstly, the “calculation of odds” assumes that protein molecules formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces various, complex chemical products and all of those products then interact in complex ways.

Secondly, the nonsensical “calculation of odds” ignores the very basic reality that there would be incalculable numbers of biochemical interactions occurring simultaneously.

To the back of the line you go at the Henry Morris School of the Silly,

 

[Hollie]

You are free to propound your prejudices, of course.

Nobody can stop you from propounding your pathetic ignorance.
But intelligent people can choose to ignore you, and they should.

"Go from the presence of a foolish man." - The Holy Bible, filled with wisdom, beginning with the science in the First Sentence in the First Book, which required scientists 2000 years to prove.

ciao brutto
You just joined others like yourself on my Ignore List

It really is comical to watch you run away, pout and complain when your nonsensical attempts at argument are dismissed as routine ID’iot creationer whining.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Evolution is done in TINY TINY TINY steps----

You don't understand the insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis.
Picking the next amino acid to be added to a new protein capable of your daring "selection" must be done from a base of 20 different amino acids of which humans are built. One chance in 20 does not change in one month, or one year or 10,000 years. It's always 1 in 20. Now raise that to the 33,450th power for titin, in your muscles. That's just ONE protein of th 5,000 that make up your body. "Tiny, tiny, tiny" numbers indeed. Equal to 0. No different from 0. Impossible is the word.
Atheist Dawkins himself has defined "impossible" as "one chance in 10 to the 40th power." Again, what is 1/20 to the 33,450? Is is smaller than 1 in 10 to the 40th ya think?

For anyone actually interested in this along with pesky logic, facts, and stuff,.. here's a nice taste of the recent scientific wisdom.

 

[Hollie]

On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Haha. If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short. They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.

No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true. Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories. Evolution becomes bogus.

That makes no sense.

Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.

I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.

You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.

Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.

The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.

I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

 

[Weatherman2020]

On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Haha. If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short. They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.

No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true. Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories. Evolution becomes bogus.

That makes no sense.

Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.

I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.

You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.

Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.

The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.

I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

Cripes. I just stated the thread is not about evolution but the beginning of life itself. You can’t have evolution without something living. Take a crack at it. Tell us how rocks ended up writing Concerto No 5.

 

[ChemEngineer]

A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

A topnotch WordPress.com site

TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com

 

[james bond]

For anyone actually interested in this along with pesky logic, facts, and stuff,.. here's a nice taste of the recent scientific wisdom.

You couldn't even explain what the paper was about pops. Just get a life before you know.

ETA: I don't mind you presenting a complex argument, but at least give us a sentence or two about what you argument is about and how it relates to abiogenesis. Then we know you know something and can contribute. Instead, we know your side has no evidence for abiogenesis, but make up as many things as you can about RNA and DNA. The paper has nothing to do with abiogenesis. What does it have to do with ToE? Can you explain that?

 

[Weatherman2020]

On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Haha. If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short. They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.

No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true. Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories. Evolution becomes bogus.

That makes no sense.

Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.

I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.

You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.

Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.

The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.

I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

And though it’s off topic, there’s never in history a genetic defect of any living creature that was beneficial. They always shorten the lifespan, always.

 

[ChemEngineer]

You couldn't even explain what the paper was about pops. Just get a life before you know.

The paper is an exercise in bullshit, using technical words which mean nothing. Douglas Axe has shown that for a very simple polypeptide of only 150 amino acid residues in length, only 1 combination in 10 to the 170th power is functional. The rest are garbage.

A protein that short is meaningless. Human hemoglobin is composed of 574 residues. Titin in our muscles is composed of 33,450 residues.
Grumblenuts doesn't even know how to raise 1/20 to the 574th power much less to the 33,450th power, both of which decimals are no different from 0 in terms of probability.

One in 20 to the 574th equates to 1 in 10 to the 650th power. That's, oh, 610 orders of magnitude more impossible than Dickie Dawkins' Definition.

Richard Dawkins has stated that 1 chance in 10 to the 40th is impossible.
So what of 1 in 10 to the 170th or much, much less?

 

[Grumblenuts]

For anyone actually interested in this along with pesky logic, facts, and stuff,.. here's a nice taste of the recent scientific wisdom.

You couldn't even explain what the paper was about pops. Just get a life before you know.

Just keep telling yourself that, sonny. Whatever helps you sleep at night..

 

[Hollie]

On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Haha. If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short. They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.

No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true. Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories. Evolution becomes bogus.

That makes no sense.

Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.

I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.

You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.

Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.

The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.

I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

Cripes. I just stated the thread is not about evolution but the beginning of life itself. You can’t have evolution without something living. Take a crack at it. Tell us how rocks ended up writing Concerto No 5.

You might try understanding the terms you use. The origin of life on the planet is not fully understood. All the basic building blocks of life are abundant in the universe so it may be only a matter of time before the spark of life occurred.

Tell us how your gods made a snake talk to a human and scolded them for fruit theft.

 

[Hollie]

On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Haha. If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short. They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.

No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true. Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories. Evolution becomes bogus.

That makes no sense.

Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.

I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.

You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.

Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.

The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.

I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

And though it’s off topic, there’s never in history a genetic defect of any living creature that was beneficial. They always shorten the lifespan, always.

I guess you were a graduate of the Henry Morris School for the Silly.

CB101: Most mutations harmful?

Claim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

Response:

1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
   
   The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
   
   
2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
   • Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
   • Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
   • Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
   • A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
   • Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
   • In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
   
   
4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
   
   
5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).

 

[Weatherman2020]

On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Haha. If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short. They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.

No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true. Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories. Evolution becomes bogus.

That makes no sense.

Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.

I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.

You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.

Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.

The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.

I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

Cripes. I just stated the thread is not about evolution but the beginning of life itself. You can’t have evolution without something living. Take a crack at it. Tell us how rocks ended up writing Concerto No 5.

You might try understanding the terms you use. The origin of life on the planet is not fully understood. All the basic building blocks of life are abundant in the universe so it may be only a matter of time before the spark of life occurred.

Tell us how your gods made a snake talk to human and scolded them for fruit theft.

The origin of life is fully understood. You just have a problem with coming up with a plausible spin.

 

[Weatherman2020]

On the other hand, in the realm of science, Biological eolution and common descent are, clearly, falsifiable. One way to disprove both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Not surprisingly, creationers insist that to be true but fall short of any demonstration. ID’iot creationers could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or produce organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago.

If we go by the Bible and each day of creation was 24-hr periods, then we can conclude the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Haha. If creationists fall short of demonstration, then the evolutioners fall even more short. They can't even falsify long time for the Earth and universe since the Bible has been eliminated because they said so.

No, it's your atheistic religion that makes you spout that long time and old universe and Earth is true. Without the Bible and creationists, then you can't falsify your old age theories. Evolution becomes bogus.

That makes no sense.

Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth. You may have forgotten, but your post #72 included a graphic of the universe depicting a 13.7 billion year timeline.

I suppose I should provide a short lesson for you. Biological evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. Evolution is often described as a change in the gene pool over extended time periods but that is not always the case. The English moth is an example of observed evolution over a short time period. There are two color moths, light and dark. Observers found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. Industrialization and the burning of coal with the resultant soot caused the frequency of the dark moth to increase in the years following. By 1898, 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type.

You remain confused. It was Bible'ers and creationers who kept Europe mired in the Dark Ages. It was the Christian church that crushed the exploration of science, mathematics and astronomy because enlightenment and exploration of the natural world was a threat the church doctrine.

Topic is not evolution but the starting point of life.
And call me when your moth becomes a hamster. Like people, genes already in existence become dominate due to environmental influences. There is no new gene. Swedes have blond hair blue eyes and Africans have dark skin and black hair.

The starting point of life has nothing to do with evolution. You seem befuddled about some very basic concepts of abiogenesis and biological evolution.

I’ll suggest a simple concept within biological organisms and it’s one you can research on your own: genes mutate. (gene = a hereditary unit) Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

And though it’s off topic, there’s never in history a genetic defect of any living creature that was beneficial. They always shorten the lifespan, always.

I guess you were a graduate of the Henry Morris School for the Silly.

CB101: Most mutations harmful?

Claim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.

Response:

1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
   
   The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
   
   
2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
   • Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
   • Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
   • Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
   • A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
   • Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
   • In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
   
   
4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
   
   
5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).

A submissive gene becoming dominate is not a mutation.

 

[Hollie]

You couldn't even explain what the paper was about pops. Just get a life before you know.

The paper is an exercise in bullshit, using technical words which mean nothing. Douglas Axe has shown that for a very simple polypeptide of only 150 amino acid residues in length, only 1 combination in 10 to the 170th power is functional. The rest are garbage.

A protein that short is meaningless. Human hemoglobin is composed of 574 residues. Titin in our muscles is composed of 33,450 residues.
Grumblenuts doesn't even know how to raise 1/20 to the 574th power much less to the 33,450th power, both of which decimals are no different from 0 in terms of probability.

One in 20 to the 574th equates to 1 in 10 to the 650th power. That's, oh, 610 orders of magnitude more impossible than Dickie Dawkins' Definition.

Richard Dawkins has stated that 1 chance in 10 to the 40th is impossible.
So what of 1 in 10 to the 170th or much, much less?

It’s comical that hyper-religious loons would take advice on science matters from a Disco’tute charlatan.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Axe is a zealous creationist associated with the Discovery Institute (he is the director at their “Biologic Institute"). Axe is a molecular biologist, and thus actually knows some science. He uses this knowledge to write mundane papers, at least two of which have been published in low-tier, although genuine, journals - despite being uninteresting and mundane. Axe’s work is hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views. Of course, there is no actual support of intelligent design in these published papers, and Axe himself admits as much: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function

Insofar as Axe is a creationist with real scientific publications to his name, Axe’s work is one of the main contributions to a sheen of legitimacy for the ID movement. But given that his publications do not at all support or even touch on their views (but are willfully interpreted as such by other ID-proponents without Axe complaining) he is an important contributor to erecting the framework of dishonesty that is the ID movement.

Diagnosis: Dishonest wingnut who might pose a genuine if minor threat to science and rationality as a creationist with actually published (though unrelated) material.