Creation vs. Evolution II

[6days]

This means that (Snelling) WILL NOT accept any evidence that contradicts his prior creationist beliefs, no matter how much evidence there is.

That would be similar to evolutionists who WILL NOT accept any evidence that contradicts their a priori commitments to material causes, no matter how much evidence there is.

 

[6days]

*Everything after Noah is literally true...
I do believe in the virgin birth.

Was Noahs grandfather, Methuselah a fictitious character? Enoch? Cain?*
Why would you believe the virgin birth yet reject the lineage between Adam and Christ? If you reject the doctrine of original sin, then why was it necessary for Jesus to be born of a virgin? And, why did Jesus need to suffer physical death?

 

[gcthomas]

That would be similar to evolutionists who WILL NOT accept any evidence that contradicts their a priori commitments to material causes, no matter how much evidence there is.

Please provide evidence that non-material causes have an observable effect in any experiment.

I await with anticipation!

 

[6days]

Please provide evidence that non-material causes have an observable effect in any experiment.

Energy has an observable effect in all experiments.*
Gravity is is a non-material cause that has an observable effect in experiments. Evolutionists invoke all types of non material causes to try rationalize emperical science with their belief system (Dark matter, dark energy, dark planets, dark galaxies,* etc).

Evolutionists have the door wide open allowing all types of hypothetical non-material causes...yet they are unwilling to follow evidence that leads to a "super intelligence".*

I await with anticipation!

Sorry, to have kept you waiting.

In the beginning, God created

 

[gcthomas]

Energy has an observable effect in all experiments.*
Gravity is is a non-material cause that has an observable effect in experiments. Evolutionists invoke all types of non material causes to try rationalize emperical science with their belief system (Dark matter, dark energy, dark planets, dark galaxies,* etc).

Evolutionists have the door wide open allowing all types of hypothetical non-material causes...yet they are unwilling to follow evidence that leads to a "super intelligence".*

Sorry, to have kept you waiting.

In the beginning, God created

Energy is not an immaterial substance, it is a calculation of a number. Energy is ALWAYS of the material. Gravity likewise, is thoroughly physical.

You have no experimental evidence that any god related activity ever happened, but you believe it anyway. Isn't faith in the absence of evidence a required behavior for Christians? Why isn't your faith enough: why should you feel the need to misrepresent science so you can feel it bolsters your weak faith?

 

[Jose Fly]

Energy has an observable effect in all experiments.

Unlike gods.

Also unlike gods, we can manipulate energy, harness energy, direct energy, quantify energy, etc.

Gravity is is a non-material cause that has an observable effect in experiments.

Also unlike gods, gravity can be quantified, empirically detected, experimented on, etc.

You fail again 6days.

 

[6days]

You have no experimental evidence that any god related activity ever happened, but you believe it anyway.

Actually there is overwhelming evidence. It's just that you reject evidence that contradicts your belief system.*

*Isn't faith in the absence of evidence a required behavior for Christians?

Haha... that is pretty naieve of you. *Christianity is a faith based on evidence. *We have evidence from things seen in history, literature, prophecy, archaeology science etc. We also have evidence of things unseen such as the omnipotence and omniscience of the Creator in the world around us.*

For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Rom. 1:20

 

[Hedshaker]

Seeing as you have not replied to the contrary on any of my points, I will just assume you agree with me .

Lol, look up the Dunning Kruger effect.

I pointed out how you were misusing the word "Theory" as it pertains to science and your reply was: "Yes, but I was using the word "Theory" as it is used in common speech." Excuse me but what? A Theory in science is not meant in the same way as common speech, as I pointed out. If you're claiming that the Theory of Evolution is not a scientific Theory but a common theory then your gripe is with the science community, not with me.

I explained in simple terms how best to view a scientific Theory, and you reply was: "Well, that is not good enough. Scientific theory is more specific. You can get away with anything generalising like that."

Oh dear..... science does not deal in "perceived" absolute truths like religion. It generates Theories based on the available evidence. If new evidence comes to light and is meticulously examined and peer reviewed then the Theory may need to be edited to suit. Once an hypothesis becomes recognised as a Theory in science then it is at its most esteemed level, unless a better Theory is presented, again based on the evidence, rigorous testing and peer review.

Science is not perfect. It is generally laborious, messy and sometimes open to abused. But it is by far the most successful human endeavour there is when it comes to gaining real knowledge about the natural world. And it is by far the best known way to over come confirmation bias.

So no, I have no intention of quibbling back and forth for pages and pages over your misconceptions. Do your self a favour and do a little home work first, because as it is we're not even on the same page.

 

[MichaelCadry]

You are a deceitful person, 6Days.When you brought this up in February, I checked your theologian/philosopher source, and pointed out the nonsense of it: Your one-inch movement along the 'tape measure', according to your source, corresponds to a factor one million increase in gravitational strengths.

So to rephrase your statement with this clarifications:
DON'T TOUCH that dial. If gravity were increased by just a factor of a million, the results would be catastrophic! People and animals would be crushed.

Well, yes. Well done. Gravity is not nearly as fine tuned as you seem to think - a wide variety for G would still produce stars and habitable planets. A factor of A THOUSAND would be OK.

You just keep regurgitating the same old guff, again and again. You never learn, you never even improve your claims. You are static, and unable to develop your arguments.

Dear gcthomas,

I am really tired of all of you beating up on 6days. He is only one man and there are four or five of you. I think he does an excellent job and I have exceptional judgement, if you knew my life from beginning till now. I am so very thankful to call 6days an excellent addition to this Creation Thread. It has been over three years now. God is with him and within him. Don't ever think twice about it.

Warmest Regards & Cheerio, Matey!!

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

Dear gcthomas,

I am really tired of all of you beating up on 6days. He is only one man and there are four or five of you. I think he does an excellent job and I have exceptional judgement, if you knew my life from beginning till now. I am so very thankful to call 6days an excellent addition to this Creation Thread. It has been over three years now. God is with him and within him. Don't ever think twice about it.

6Days never learns and never changes his judgement. He spends all his energy misrepresenting the evidence and theory, hoping to muddy the water enough to slip in some anti-science in its place.

He is quite welcome to have his own opinions, but he cannot have his own facts - he distorts them (which is most certainly dishonest - either his dishonesty or the dishonesty of those in whom he places his trust) and lies about the nature of science. I am happy for him to say he believes in to 6 day creation, but he is not entitled to claim that science supports the same. It objectively doesn't, and so it is a lie to say that it does.

I, as a physicist, will refrain from criticising his opinions as a Christian if he will stop lying about the physics. That's fair, isn't it Michael?

 

[6days]

(6days)*lies about the nature of science.

I think it frustrates you to find out that there are interpretations that not only differ from your own, but often are a better fit of the data.*

(6days) is not entitled to claim that science supports (Biblical creation)

Evolutionists do not support a supernatural creation. *The evidence from science shows a *'super intellect created the physics'. *
It isn't just 6days who says science supports the Biblical account, but also PhD scientists in fields such as microbiology, genetitics, biology, paleontology, astronomy, geology, mathmatics, biochemistry, geophysics, physiology, anthropogy, hydrometallurgy, entomology, biological chemistry, medicine, archaeology, astrophysics, *zoology, cosmology, physiology, nuclear physics and more.

 

[gcthomas]

I think it frustrates you to find out that there are interpretations that not only differ from your own, but often are a better fit of the data.*

You just can't stop lying, can you? Why isn't your faith enough? Why do you need science to validate your beliefs?

Evolutionists do not support a supernatural creation. *The evidence from science shows a *'super intellect created the physics'. *
It isn't just 6days who says science supports the Biblical account, but also PhD scientists in fields such as microbiology, genetitics, biology, paleontology, astronomy, geology, mathmatics, biochemistry, geophysics, physiology, anthropogy, hydrometallurgy, entomology, biological chemistry, medicine, archaeology, astrophysics, *zoology, cosmology, physiology, nuclear physics and more.

There are more scientists with PhDs named Steve that disagree with you, so your appeal to popularity fails as a fallacy.

https://ncse.com/list-of-steves

 

[Hawkins]

Unlike gods.

Also unlike gods, we can manipulate energy, harness energy, direct energy, quantify energy, etc.



Also unlike gods, gravity can be quantified, empirically detected, experimented on, etc.

You fail again 6days.

History is never observable. Does history exist or not?

You are so brainwashed to think that every kind of truths can be 'observable'.

Even what you yourself did yesterday is not observable, are you absent from yesterday?

 

[gcthomas]

History is never observable. Does history exist or not?

You are so brainwashed to think that every kind of truths can be 'observable'.

Even what you yourself did yesterday is not observable, are you absent from yesterday?

I've saw a star explode, as it happened, 100 million years ago. It grew brighter until it outshone it's host galaxy, then it faded away again. Direct observation of the past.

But your are wrong about the science of past events. Those events leave evidence, and observations of that evidence can support or refute the predictions of the science. Evolution makes predictions about future finds of fossil evidence, and lab experiments observe evolution in real time.

It's a science. Get over it.

 

[Hawkins]

I've saw a star explode, as it happened, 100 million years ago. It grew brighter until it outshone it's host galaxy, then it faded away again. Direct observation of the past.

But your are wrong about the science of past events. Those events leave evidence, and observations of that evidence can support or refute the predictions of the science. Evolution males predictions about future finds of fossil evidence, and lab experiments observe evolution in real time.

It's a science. Get over it.

Science is just one kind of truths. Not each and every kind of truths is a science. That's the point.

You don't even have the intelligence to comprehend what is said correctly.

 

[6days]

There are more scientists with PhDs named Steve that disagree with you, so your appeal to popularity fails as a fallacy.*

If ever there was an appeal to popularity, you just used it.

The list of various fields of science was not an appeal to popularity. It was a list showing your claim was silly. A list of fields of science that contain some scientists who suggest science supports Biblical creation is hardly an appeal to popularity.
GC claimed:
(6days) is not entitled to claim that science supports (Biblical creation)
6days replied:
It isn't just 6days who says science supports the Biblical account, but also PhD scientists in fields such as microbiology, genetitics, biology, paleontology, astronomy, geology, mathmatics, biochemistry, geophysics, physiology, anthropogy, hydrometallurgy, entomology, biological chemistry, medicine, archaeology, astrophysics, zoology, cosmology, physiology, nuclear physics and more.

I've saw a star explode, as it happened, 100 million years ago.

You saw the star today. The 100 million yeara is a belief, or an interpretation of evidence. There are other intetpretations that better fit the evidence. IE. In the beginning, God created...

 

[gcthomas]

Science is just one kind of truths. Not each and every kind of truths is a science. That's the point.

You don't even have the intelligence to comprehend what is said correctly.

What sort of sorry discussion can it be if on the first disagreement you respond with attempted personal insult? Get a grip.

 

[redfern]

I’ve been out of town on business for a few days, but it appears I may have a bit more spare time now. Recapping – Concerning the question of genetic load. 6days believes that humans are distinctly deteriorating genetically, due to mildly deleterious mutations in our DNA (sometimes called VSDMs – Very Slightly Deleterious Mutations) accumulating over generations. I mentioned a 1995 scientific article by Alexey Kondrashov (a Professor at Cornell) in which he presents some mathematics showing that there are ways in which genomes can compensate for this “genetic load” problem.

In my previous post to 6 days on this subject, I said:

That’s it? That’s what you meant when you said you were “using his calculations"? You gotta be joking.

You are responding to a paper that presents and relies on over a dozen equations, including partial differential equations, which requires specifying the coefficient of selection (s), effective population sizes (Ne), forward mutation rate (u), reverse mutation rate (v), and the number of nucleotides (G). It shows how to use this data to compute the deleterious mutation rate (U), time-interval probability functions … <at this point we are less than 50% of the way through Kondrahov’s paper>. For Professor 6days, this can all be summarized as just “100 new mutations”….

The opening line in his response was:

Yes..... essentially correct.

I had not expected 6days to directly affirm that indeed he understood almost nothing in Kondrashov’s paper. The very reason Kondrashov spent the time to research and write the paper was specifically to address the issue of accumulating new mutations, and that’s what he based the title of his paper on. 6days and I have traded several posts dealing with Kondrashov’s paper, but 6days’ response shows that his understanding stops right where Kondrashov starts when authoring his paper.

In a prior post 6days says:

…<regarding the rate at which mutations accumulate> Kondrashov specified 100. That was a very low estimate. Nachman and Crowell said the number was 175.

So? Show me in Kondrashov’s paper where he specifies a mutation rate above which extinction is inevitable. All I see are the mathematical relationships relating mutation rates to population sizes, the number of nucleotides, selection coefficients, and so on. I previously pointedly invited you to follow the math Kondrashov uses, and show where it fails. But so far you seem to be dead stuck at the title, and scared to follow specific numbers into the paper itself. The following enlightening comment from you shows your feelings on actually understanding the technical arguments Kondrashov presents:

You are wanting to get into the weeds with his hypothesizing

What you want to dismiss as “wanting to get into the weeds” is called “doing science”. You have shown you prefer to mindlessly accept oral traditions from iron-age nomads as the most reliable science, but real scientists today very often depend on carefully defining the relevant parameters and presenting the supporting mathematics for critical review. You might find it liberating, try it.

Looking over all you have said about Kondrashov’s paper, I see nothing but generic allusions to its content and approach. The lack of specificity leads me to suspect you don’t actually have a copy of his paper at hand. Disabuse me of my suspicions by, say, turning to his list of “REFERENCES” at the end of his paper, and in his third listed reference tell us who the first listed author is and what Journal that author’s referenced paper can actually be found in.

...rather than discuss the data.

Oh I do want to discuss the data … and to examine the genetic mechanisms that can affect the data. You are the one who thinks the data is nothing more than just declaring there are lots of mutations occurring.

(Kondrashov calls it possible resolutions). His math and graphs are an attempt to rationalize data (mutation rate) with his beliefs in common ancestry.

His math and graphs are showing that genetic load is not necessarily a slippery slope to extinction. Can you show anywhere in his paper that he relies in any way on common ancestry?

Now if his paper facilitates an understanding of how common ancestry can occur, so what? Elementary algebra is used in common ancestry ideas … does that indict the integrity of elementary algebra?

There may be 20 times that amount (or more) <20 times 100 mutations per generation>.

Or you may be desperate enough to feel you have to suggest values more than an order of magnitude higher than are realistic. Specifically, a recent published paper:

The Human Germline Mutation Rate​ Numerous lines of evidence, many based on whole-genome sequencing of parent–offspring trios, show that the average human mutation rate is in the range of 1.1–1.7 x 10^-8 per nucleotide site per generation for base-substitution mutations alone (Lynch 2009; Campbell et al. 2012; Kong et al. 2012; O’Roak et al. 2012; Ségurel et al.2014; Besenbacher et al 2015). … an average newborn contains ~100 de novo mutations. From “Mutation and Human Exceptionalism: Our Future Genetic Load” Michael Lynch GENETICS March 1, 2016 vol. 202 no. 3 http://www.genetics.org/content/202/3/869

​

You got something (other than wishful thinking), such as from actual recent peer–reviewed scientific literature that says this is a factor of 20 times too low?

Those estimates were based on what was considered functional DNA, which at that time was considered to be a small percentage of our DNA.

Interesting point. How about a cite, please.

Kondrashov then tries to "resolve" the problem with synergistic epistasis and truncation selection.

So? His paper simply shows, in formal mathematical detail, that there are mechanisms which can overcome genetic load. Bellyaching about a mathematically-based solution is kinda childish. If the math is wrong, show where.

The problem is much worse now than he could have imagined when he wrote that article back in 1995.

I am perfectly willing to look at relevant scientific data or studies since Kondrashov’s paper. How about posting some links to such studies? (I have identified a number of similar published studies since Kondrashov’s paper. You wanna get into the nitty-gritty on some of them?)

The evidence supports that which God tells us…

No, science does not support much of what is recorded in those ancient nomadic tribal accounts that you are emotionally wedded to.

Finally, lacking anything other than hot air on this genetic load question, you aim your sights more directly at me:

Would you care to discuss a few things you are dodging? Or, have your thoughts evolved a bit?

When my thoughts quit evolving I hope it is only because I have reached the end of my life. So far in my life the evolution of my thoughts have taken me from a strong Christian mindset to a more evidence and logic-based understanding of the world.

* You seemed to think there are individuals who have unusually low numbers of mutations.

Well, earlier you said:

… In this article <Kondrashov’s article> he refers to the stochastic load as a paradox.

Stochastic, huh? Doesn’t that mean the accumulation of VSDMs is pretty much random? That would mean they have a statistical spread, and mathematical concepts like standard deviations become applicable. How many standard deviations off the norm do you have to go to be down to a millionth of the original population?

* You seemed to think Kondrashov wasn't talking about humans.

Creationists hate reading. I already addressed this specific claim back in post 164.

*You seemed to think that mutations to non coding DNA that had regulatory function can be dismissed as insignificant.

Creationists hate reading. I have said zero – not one word or mention about whether the mutated DNA was coding or not. Nor does Kondrashov in his paper.

* You seemed to think selection can remove even the slightly deleterious mutations.

Creationists hate reading. I have made no such claim, other than referring to Kondrashov’s article dealing with exactly that, that you assiduously dodge getting into specifics on.

* You seemed to think 100 mutations added to our genome each generation was just a silly misleading number.

Creationists hate reading. Nope, you are making up false claims because you have nothing better to fall back on.

* You seemed to think science supports your beliefs?

Not “seemed” (past tense), since science does support my position on this genetic load question. I still have Kondrashov’s scientific paper that you can’t get past the title on.

(Wow, if I were goal posts you would have pushed me into the next county.)

 

[MichaelCadry]

6Days never learns and never changes his judgement. He spends all his energy misrepresenting the evidence and theory, hoping to muddy the water enough to slip in some anti-science in its place.

He is quite welcome to have his own opinions, but he cannot have his own facts - he distorts them (which is most certainly dishonest - either his dishonesty or the dishonesty of those in whom he places his trust) and lies about the nature of science. I am happy for him to say he believes in to 6 day creation, but he is not entitled to claim that science supports the same. It objectively doesn't, and so it is a lie to say that it does.

I, as a physicist, will refrain from criticising his opinions as a Christian if he will stop lying about the physics. That's fair, isn't it Michael?

Dear gcthomas,

Yes, that sounds fair. But keep in mind that 6days says more than the same thing over and over again. A lot of what he says is new stuff. And gct, there really is a God. I know you don't believe it, but it is true. There are ways I have of knowing it's true, but you'd never believe me. But one thing you can definitely rest your soul on is that there really is a Jesus and also a God. Can you trust me on that somehow? If there was anything that was totally for sure, it is that God is a divine Creator. He is the Master at Chemistry, Biology, Geology, etc. You are the one believing in lies, but you are misled by God's adversary, Satan. And he has you so wrapped around his little finger, like a fish where there is no room in between the scales for air. Airtight! No room for God to squeeze in there, because you reject any other possibilities. Anyway, I am way behind you all here. I am on Page 23. I've been extremely busy for about three days now.

Gcthomas, you know I have a soft spot for you and that's why I kept urging you to post more here. And you are doing an excellent job. It's like you came out of your shell. You used to only post here sparingly, but now, you are the main dude!! I am proud of you. And it's really a treat to have Hedshaker post here again. You both should know that you are loved. You are like two good buddies with different beliefs, but that doesn't mean much, in the scheme of things. Well, I'm going to get back to Page 23 and play catch up.

Best Wishes,

Michael

 

[6days]

6days believes that humans are distinctly deteriorating genetically, due to mildly deleterious mutations in our DNA (sometimes called VSDMs – Very Slightly Deleterious Mutations) accumulating over generations. I mentioned a 1995 scientific article by Alexey Kondrashov (a Professor at Cornell) in which he presents some mathematics showing that there are ways in which genomes can compensate for this “genetic load” problem....
....So? Show me in Kondrashov’s paper where he specifies a mutation rate above which extinction is inevitable.

Kondrashov understands simple math. If the mutation rate is higher than birth rate, it will lead to eventual extinction. He used the number of 100 new slightly deleterious mutations (and at least a few are deleterious], so my wife and I would need to have at least a couple hundred kids. That is simple math, genetics and logic since selection would have to remove mutations as fast as they occur.
In 1950 Muller discussed the problem saying that if the deleterious mutation rate was close to only 1 deleterious mutation per person, per generation that the long term result would be deteriation of our genome. (journal Genetics, 'Our Load of Mutations'). That is because our birth rate is only slightly more than one person per generation.

Kondrashov then tries to "resolve" the problem with synergistic epistasis and truncation selection.

So? His paper simply shows, in formal mathematical detail, that there are mechanisms which can overcome genetic load. Bellyaching about a mathematically-based solution is kinda childish. If the math is wrong, show where.

I can answer, but first... Are you agreeing with his numbers, and this particular model? IOW.... Is the standard multiplicative population genetic model wrong?

His math and graphs are showing that genetic load is not necessarily a slippery slope to extinction. Can you show anywhere in his paper that he relies in any way on common ancestry?

All of Kondrashovs work is based on the belief in common ancestry. Genetic load / mutation rates (the data) easily fits within the couple hundred generations since creation. He is trying to rationalize the data within his beliefs of tens of thousands of generations. He has said things such as "Because deleterious mutations are much more common than beneficial ones, evolution under this relaxed selection will inevitably lead to a decline in the mean fitness of the population.”

Again... it isn't difficult. Kondrashov knows his common ancestry beliefs has a problem with what is known. So he is proposing a model that is artificial and biologically unrealistic. He calls it "possible resolutions".

*There may be 20 times that amount (or more) <20 times 100 mutations per generation>.

Or you may be desperate enough to feel you have to suggest values more than an order of magnitude higher than are realistic.

I don't think you understand. Only 3 deleterious mutations per generation is a problem to common ancestry. 100 mutations per genome per generation is a problem. One geneticist has called it the population bomb.

As to your article helping you out... it doesn't. They say there is 100 new base-substitution mutions added to our genome with each passing generation. (Thats a huge problem). But add on 100+satellite mutations, a couple deletions and a couple insertions (that would be hundreds if not thousands of nucleotide changes), add on a few thousand inversion and conversion mutations. Oh... and don't forget there may have been 1 mitochondrial mutation (possibly 1 every 2 or 3 generations. The total is MUCH higher than 100....

The problem is much worse now than he could have imagined when he wrote that article back in 1995.

I am perfectly willing to look at relevant scientific data or studies since Kondrashov’s paper.

Google ENCODE.

The evidence supports that which God tells us…

No, science does not support much of what is recorded in those ancient nomadic tribal accounts

Ahhhhh.....those ancient nomadic sheep herders wrote some pretty brilliant stuff. Interesting how a few thousand years later science keeps proving Gods Word correct... and evolutionists wrong.

You seemed to think there are individuals who have unusually low numbers of mutations.

Stochastic..... That would mean they have a statistical spread, and mathematical concepts like standard deviations become applicable.

Thats dodging that you originally presented a very simple and unscientific model. You suggested some people have unusually low numbers of mutations that benicial mutations could trump. I think that is what my high school teacher taught also, but its not realistic. We ALL have thousands of deleterious mutations... we all have more mutations than our parents and less than our children. As Kondrashov later said, mutations very likely contribute to increasing incidences of diseases, including schizophrenia and autism.