How is there reality without God?

[EarthScienceguy]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #390]

LOL....all that effort spent on petty insults and you didn't even answer the question. You claimed the equations were specifically about dominant alleles, I asked you to show where they say that, and you dodge.

Obviously you didn't answer the question because you were wrong, but can't admit it. "Extreme lack of humility"....just like the paper said.

I was not insulting I was giving constructive feed back. Notice I said what you did and then gave an example.

You said you did understand the equation so if that is true what do p and q mean if it does not mean dominant and recessive? Why should I look it up I know what they mean.

You can say that all you like, but you've not shown a single error I've made. Clearly, you've lost the argument, but rather than admit it you're just stomping your feet and throwing around childish insults.

No, No it is constructive critiizism. Now watch because you projected again. This seems to be a problem that you have so let me help you by showing you how this is a projection. You see in the statement above you said that "I have not shown a single error that you made". But you are not the one making the argument I am. I started with Barbarian and now you have joined the conversation. My mathematics has not changed the entire time and I asked you to show me how my calculation was incorrect. Do you see how you reversed that? I understand the feelings that you must be having because projection is a defense mechanism that people use subconsciously in order to cope with denial or with difficult feelings and or emotions. Here is an article for you to read about it. https://www.everydayhealth.com/emotiona ... 20feelings.

I hope that helps!!

How would you know you do not even know what the variables in the equation mean? Well, that and doing the simple math.
You can say that all you like, but you've not shown a single error I've made. Clearly you've lost the argument, but rather than admit it you're just stomping your feet and throwing around childish insults.

What insult? You have not said what you believe the variables in the equation mean and you have not shown any mathematics. I am simply stating reality.

E

xcept, as I explained earlier, we conduct experiments on single-clone populations, which allows us to show that the alleles weren't already in the population. That's the whole point of using single-clone strains!

I made room for this in my statement. "Creation theory says that both natural selection and genetic drift play a part in small changes in organisms."

Creation theory does not say that genetic drift does not happen. But I am really starting to believe that the research is showing that completely neutral genetic drift cannot take place but that is simply a gut feeling of mine it is nothing I researched.

First, the population genetics equations you've been trying to cite (and have been making hilarious errors with) are simply about estimating the genetic changes populations undergo from one generation to the next. They're not about common descent, specific lineages, or anything like that. As I tried to show you (and you ignored repeatedly), population geneticists develop these models to try and predict what genetic changes are likely to occur from generation to generation, and then they test their models by observing experimental populations evolving in the lab.

So trying to take those types of models and hold them up as "proving evolution is impossible" or expecting them to "prove common descent" is either unbelievably ignorant, or is seriously dishonest.

What you are saying does not hold up in the lab. You did an experiment in which one mutation became fixed in let's say three weeks that around 1500 generations. No one on this forum has given any example that has fallen below Haldane's 300 generations per mutation. These are empty words because you cannot back them up with any type of observation. Even when Haldane said that the 300 generations were simply average. And yet for evolution to be believable mutations must regularly become fixed in less than 300 generations.

Second, these equations and models are attempts to approximate reality, not dictate it.

If that is true then they approximate creation as reality not the fairytale of evolution.

[brunumb]

Creationism believes that genetic drift can happen except that the alleles are already present in the organism so the beginning frequency would not have to be 0.01 as it has to be in the evolutionary hypothesis. Creation theory says that both natural selection and genetic drift play a part in small changes in organisms.

Where in creationism are alleles and genetic drift etc. mentioned? I thought creationism was simply "God-did-it", end of story. Isn't that creation 'theory' in a nutshell.

[Jose Fly]

You said you did understand the equation so if that is true what do p and q mean if it does not mean dominant and recessive? Why should I look it up I know what they mean.

Of for goodness sakes. You really need to stop.

It's right there in the website you tried to link to. p and q represent the frequencies of two alleles, A1 and A2. Because drift is about random sampling error, dominant and recessive have nothing to do with it (hint: "random" means whether an allele is dominant or recessive has no bearing on its fate under random drift). That's yet another fundamental mistake you've been making.

You have not said what you believe the variables in the equation mean and you have not shown any mathematics. I am simply stating reality.

You're not even making sense any more.

Except, as I explained earlier, we conduct experiments on single-clone populations, which allows us to show that the alleles weren't already in the population. That's the whole point of using single-clone strains!

I made room for this in my statement. "Creation theory says that both natural selection and genetic drift play a part in small changes in organisms."

Creation theory does not say that genetic drift does not happen. But I am really starting to believe that the research is showing that completely neutral genetic drift cannot take place but that is simply a gut feeling of mine it is nothing I researched.

LOL...did you not even understand the point?

You claimed (emphasis mine): "Creationism believes that genetic drift can happen except that the alleles are already present in the organism".

A single-clone population is a population where all the members are descended from one individual. So any alleles that show up in later generations that weren't in the starting population therefore had to have arisen during the course of the experiment. That's the entire point behind single-clone strains!

Therefore, if creationism is as you described, it's directly contradicted by observed reality and is simply wrong.

What you are saying does not hold up in the lab. You did an experiment in which one mutation became fixed in let's say three weeks that around 1500 generations. No one on this forum has given any example that has fallen below Haldane's 300 generations per mutation. These are empty words because you cannot back them up with any type of observation. Even when Haldane said that the 300 generations were simply average. And yet for evolution to be believable mutations must regularly become fixed in less than 300 generations.

Ah, so you're just going to repeat your fundamental error of thinking that population genetics models are meant to dictate reality rather than approximate it.

That's called "willful ignorance".

If that is true then they approximate creation as reality not the fairytale of evolution.

Sorry, but your empty say-so is meaningless.

[otseng]

And you do not seem to understand the equation and math in general enough to explain why that is not true.

Moderator Comment

Please debate without questioning if someone else can understand.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

You're just revealing more of your fundamental ignorance of the subject.

Your ignorance is noted.

Moderator Comment

It's best to avoid describing another as ignorant.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #0]

It's right there in the website you tried to link to. p and q represent the frequencies of two alleles, A1 and A2. Because drift is about random sampling error, dominant and recessive have nothing to do with it (hint: "random" means whether an allele is dominant or recessive has no bearing on its fate under random drift). That's yet another fundamental mistake you've been making.

Ok, so p and q do mean dominant and recessive. Thank you. And you are saying that genetic drift is totally neutral. Meaning there is no selective pressure. I can work with that.

Earlier you cited your this article or blog https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/0 ... ondil.html. In that blog Ian concluded that humans were only 154 genes and then he puts an upper limit of 980 genes from the most common ancestor between humans and chimps.

We will come back to the 154 genes and 980 genes.

But first, let us look at how accurate blogger Ian's estimation is. The following numbers are from e!Ensembl https://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Info/Index the site in which he said he got his numbers.

Gorillas have

• Base pairs 3,063,362,794

• 21794 coding genes

• 7,768 non coding genes

Humans have

• Base pairs 3,096,649,726

• 19,827 coding genes

• 25,967 non coding genes

Chimps have

• Base pairs 3,231,170,666

• 23,534 coding genes

• 9,710 non coding genes

According to your fairy tale of evolution humans and chimps evolved from gorillas. I am not quite sure where he comes up with 154 genes mutated genes. Primates consistently have more coding genes than humans do. With the Chimp number of coding genes increasing from the number the Gorillas have it is reasonable to assume that the last common ancestor would have somewhere around the number of coding genes as modern Gorillas and humans lost coding genes. So that would be a difference of 1967 genes not his 154. So at the very least during human evolution they had to lose 1967 genes and change Ians 154.

What Ian did not talk about were the non-coding genes. I do not know if Ian is living in some sort of time warp but we know today that non-coding genes are an integral part of cell function. And they have a difference of 15,000 genes. Whether you believe they are functional or not does not really matter the difference still needs to be accounted for. That means that there is actually a difference of 16967 genes, not his 154 or his 1000.

David Dewitt Liberty University

• Further, the use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences. For example, 1.23% of the differences are single base pair substitutions. This doesn’t sound like much until you realize that it represents ~35 million mutations! But that is only the beginning, because there are ~40-45 million bases present in humans and missing from chimps, as well as about the same number present in chimps that is absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are called “insertions” or “deletions” because they are thought to have been added in or lost from the sequence. (Substitutions and insertions are compared in Figure 1.) This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, there are about 40 million separate mutation events that would separate the two species. https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_3/j19_3_4-5.pdf

Most of the genetic changes in the 16,000 genes would be single-base pair substitutions. That would be 35 million mutations.

From the article I cited

• Example
  Suppose a new mutation arises in a population of size 500. What is the probability that this allele will be lost in the next generation? What is the probability that it will eventually become fixed in the population?
  
  The total number of gametes in the population is 1000. Thus, the frequency of the new allele is 0.001, and the probability that it will be lost in the next generation is [1000!/(0!)(1000)!](0.999)1000 (0.001)0 = 0.37. The probability that this new allele will eventually become fixed in the population is 1/1000.

Here is their example of a population of 500 they use 500 because anything smaller than that means the probability of extinction is high.

Now let's do some math.

35 million mutations / 500 We are making the assumption that all 500 individuals have mutations that become fixed by genetic drift.

70,000 groups of 500 4(500) = 2000 generations gives the number of generations that are needed for an allele to become fixed.

70,000 x 2000 = 1.4 E 8 generations for all of the "Evolution" to take place.

1.4 E 8 x 20 = 2.8E9 2.8 billion years. The numbers simply do not work for Evolution

[Jose Fly]

Ok, so p and q do mean dominant and recessive.

Oh for the love of....

No they don't. I literally said the exact opposite. A1 and A2 are just alleles, that's all.

And you are saying that genetic drift is totally neutral. Meaning there is no selective pressure. I can work with that.

Wait.....you just now realized that? You've been trying to debate population genetics models of drift and it's only now that you've come to realize that it's neutral?

I guess that explains a lot. But what I wonder is, why have you been trying to debate a subject you know almost nothing about? Are you so lacking in humility that saying "I honestly don't know much about this subject" isn't an option for you? I think you should pay closer attention to the book you believe to be the word of a god...."Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."

According to your fairy tale of evolution humans and chimps evolved from gorillas.

Um....what? Where in the world did you get that? I'm starting to think you're just trolling.

With the Chimp number of coding genes increasing from the number the Gorillas have

Unbelievable.

Given that your starting point is 100% off base and completely wrong, it renders everything that follows meaningless.

What Ian did not talk about were the non-coding genes.

Yes he did. Go read it again.

Most of the genetic changes in the 16,000 genes would be single-base pair substitutions.

Your empty say-so doesn't make it so, especially given your unbelievably profound ignorance of the subject matter.

The numbers simply do not work for Evolution

Riiiiiiight, if you have almost no knowledge or understanding of the subject.

I've been begging you to stop because you're simply embarrassing yourself, but you just keep plodding on, saying one ridiculously ignorant thing after another. I've no idea why you're doing this, but I feel I should repeat....you need to stop. You're making yourself look ridiculous, and even though this board is pretty dead, by extension you're making Christianity and Christians look ridiculous as well. Even if you need to pull a SherlockHolmes/Inquirer, where you curse everyone out and leave in a huff, that'd be a better option.

Like I said before, this is like debating someone who thinks that having read a children's book about Noah qualifies them to debate translations of ancient Hebrew idioms.

[Clownboat]

According to your fairy tale of evolution...

I'm curious. If evolution is a fairy tale like you claimed, what mechanism over the ToE should we be using that better explains not only the animals we see now on earth, but also in the fossil record?

I would like to compare your mechanism to the Theory of Evolution that you claim is a fairy tale so I can amend my thinking if needed.

Thank you!

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #0]

Oh for the love of....

No they don't. I literally said the exact opposite. A1 and A2 are just alleles, that's all.

Then why do they have different exponents in the equation? p has the exponent of k and q has the exponent of 2N-k and k is the probability and it is in between (0 ≤ k ≤ 2N).

Not that it really matters a hill of beans I was just playing around with you to see if you understood the equation or not.

W

ait.....you just now realized that? You've been trying to debate population genetics models of drift and it's only now that you've come to realize that it's neutral?

I guess that explains a lot. But what I wonder is, why have you been trying to debate a subject you know almost nothing about? Are you so lacking in humility that saying "I honestly don't know much about this subject" isn't an option for you? I think you should pay closer attention to the book you believe to be the word of a god...."Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."

Again just making sure you did. Because you have a tendency to change when your argument does not go as you want it to go. I already made this distinction when I was discussing this with Barbarian. Genetic drift was Kimura's solution to Haldane's dilemma but people want to slide natural selection in when they find out the genetic drift has an even worse time problem.

According to your fairy tale of evolution humans and chimps evolved from gorillas.
Um....what? Where in the world did you get that? I'm starting to think you're just trolling.

It is a make-believe story. Why can't I have my own story that I make up? You are saying that there is some make-believe primate of the past that gorillas, humans, and chimps all came from and it had the perfect genome so that this could happen.

I am simply saying that all primates have more coding genes than humans do and they have fewer coding genes than humans do. So that means if humans chimps and gorillas had a common primate ancestor, for that ancestor to be a primate it would have to have more coding genes than humans and fewer noncoding genes than humans. If humans and chimps had a common primate ancestor it had to have more coding genes than humans and fewer non-coding genes than humans.

All primates consistently have less than 10,000 non-coding genes
All primates consistently have more than 21,000 coding genes.
This number of coding and non-coding genes is what makes a primate.

Humans are totally different. You may want to call them the same as primates but their genome is totally different.
Humans have almost 26,000 non-coding genes.
Humans have lesson around 19,000 coding genes


This was Ian's conclusion.

• You are probably sitting there astonished that we are around 240 genes away from our last common ancestor with the chimp and saying “this can’t be right”[4] (how much did the guess you wrote down differ from the real thing?). However, this result agrees with previous estimates of the number of positively selected genes (Arbiza, 2006, Yu 2006).

1st Ian is more than just a little deceptive by using genes instead of nucleotides. Because he is making it sound like there were only 240 mutations between humans and their closest relatives. He also does not say how many nucleotides were mutated in those 240 genes. Each gene contains 1500 nucleotides. So the 240 genes have 3.6E5 nucleotides.

How can there only be 240 gene differences when all primates have over 21,000 coding genes and humans only have 1900 coding genes? There is even a larger difference in the non-coding genes.

2nd Ian only used coding genes in his calculations. There is a larger difference in the non-coding genes. Even if you say that they are non-functioning, which they are not, the large difference still has to be accounted for.

3rd There is more than just a little evidence that there were millions of single nucleotide mutations.

David Dewitt Liberty University

• Further, the use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences. For example, 1.23% of the differences are single base pair substitutions. This doesn’t sound like much until you realize that it represents ~35 million mutations! But that is only the beginning, because there are ~40-45 million bases present in humans and missing from chimps, as well as about the same number present in chimps that is absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are called “insertions” or “deletions” because they are thought to have been added in or lost from the sequence. (Substitutions and insertions are compared in Figure 1.) This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, there are about 40 million separate mutation events that would separate the two species. https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_3/j19_3_4-5.pdf

Given that your starting point is 100% off base and completely wrong, it renders everything that follows meaningless.

Well, that statement is a textbook example of "argumentum ad ignorantiam."
Yes he did. Go read it again. So how was my starting point incorrect? You forgot that point.

What Ian did not talk about were the non-coding genes.
Yes he did. Go read it again.

Yes that is right another example of "argumentum ad ignorantiam."

Most of the genetic changes in the 16,000 genes would be single-base pair substitutions.
Your empty say-so doesn't make it so, especially given your unbelievably profound ignorance of the subject matter.

Actually, this is an even better example of "argumentum ad ignorantiam." Yea you forget to put why you think this. Just because you believe that I am ignorant of the subject matter does not make your belief correct.

The numbers simply do not work for Evolution
Riiiiiiight, if you have almost no knowledge or understanding of the subject.

That is right ladies and gentlemen it is another "argumentum ad ignorantiam" brought to you by none other than Jose Fly. Just because you believe I have almost no knowledge or understanding of the subject does not make your belief correct. That is right you have to defend what you believe if you can.

Besides all of that, you said that the numbers do not work and that they do not have to work.

I've been begging you to stop because you're simply embarrassing yourself, but you just keep plodding on, saying one ridiculously ignorant thing after another. I've no idea why you're doing this, but I feel I should repeat....you need to stop. You're making yourself look ridiculous, and even though this board is pretty dead, by extension you're making Christianity and Christians look ridiculous as well. Even if you need to pull a SherlockHolmes/Inquirer, where you curse everyone out and leave in a huff, that'd be a better option.

Like I said before, this is like debating someone who thinks that having read a children's book about Noah qualifies them to debate translations of ancient Hebrew idioms.

What do you mean I have just been egging you on? You conceded the argument back on post 386 when you finally answered by question about showing me how the numbers for evolution. First you said this.

• Of course you didn't see anyone do that, because 1) you didn't look, (yes this would be another "argumentum ad ignorantiam") and 2) you're misunderstanding (or deliberately misrepresenting) the entire context of the subject. Population geneticists haven't been trying to modify the models to try and show that populations do indeed evolve; instead they've been modifying the models to more accurately represent evolution as it actually occurs, as I tried to show you earlier with this from the review paper. So you still do not show how the numbers for evolution work....

And the article you cited actually says that no one knows how the numbers for evolution work.

• The last several years have seen two key advances in this field. First, a number of important, and fascinating, theoretical advances have been made, each bringing us one step closer to theoretical predictions that might pertain in a ‘real’ laboratory population. Second, in parallel with this effort, experimental techniques in microbial evolution have advanced to the point where the fate of a novel mutant strain within a controlled population can be followed over many generations. Thus, these experiments are on the verge of being able to test our theoretical predictions of the fixation probability—predictions that have in many cases stood untested for 80 or 90 years. This is extremely exciting.

So at the present time theoretical predictions do not match laboratory experimentation which is exactly what I said. You conceded the discussion a long time ago that is why you have had to resort to "argumentum ad ignorantiam" arguments.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #398]

I'm curious. If evolution is a fairy tale like you claimed, what mechanism over the ToE should we be using that better explains not only the animals we see now on earth, but also in the fossil record?

First of all I never said the mechanism of genetic drift and natural selection did not produce genetic changes. My argument is that there is not enough time for the evolution hypothesis of common descent to take place. And that is because of two reasons.
1. The population sizes are to large.
2. The change needed in the genome is to large.

Creationism actually fits nicely with current population genetics and Haldane's theory for two reasons
1. The tower of Babel and Noah's Flood provided very small populations that would produce rather significant genetic change in a short period of time.

• Haldane's dilemma says that there is a cost (or genetic death) and that a species has to pay this cost in reproductive excess. And he estimated the that excess is 10 percent per generation. But after the flood, the excess would increase because of a lack of competition. With lots of small groups as the animals moved around to repopulate the earth.

2. Creationism puts a limit on the amount of genetic change that can take place. Basically and simplistically are animals that can still mate would have started out as a kind.