Evolution v Creationism: A Dead Issue

[Jose Fly]

As someone who spent a lot of time on the evolution v creationism battles over the last 20 years, I've noticed that in the last 5 years or so the issue seems to have largely gone off the radar. In the message boards that are still around (both Christian and secular) it's barely debated, if at all. Websites specifically dedicated to countering creationist talking points such as talkorigins and pandasthumb have gone silent, seemingly because there just isn't much to talk about.

Surveys have shown that younger Americans accept the reality of evolution at pretty much the same rate as the rest of the developed world. Thanks to national focus on science education by organizations like the NCSE, evolution is more widely taught than ever, even in the deep south. The Discovery Institute (the main "intelligent design" organization) stopped advocating for ID creationism to be taught in schools years ago, and they closed their alleged "research arm" last year.

On the science front, creationism remains as it has for over a century....100% scientifically irrelevant.

So for all practical intents and purposes, this debate is over. There isn't any sort of public debate over teaching creationism, nor is there any real debate about whether evolution should be taught. For sure there's still work to do in some parts of the country (mostly the south and interior west) where even though evolution is officially required, teachers don't teach it either because it's "too controversial" or they don't believe it themselves, but big picture-wise, "evolution v creationism" is in about the same state as "spherical v flat earth"....nothing more than something a handful of people argue about on the internet, but outside of that has little to no significance. And even on that front it's kinda dead....most forums where it's openly debated have a very skewed ratio where there's like 10 "evolutionists" for every 1 creationist.

Glad to see it!

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #99]

Let's one difference as an example:
chromosome fusion events(ex: chromosome 2)
How many generations did it take for this to become fixed in the genome of the future human genome?

Would you consider this event a neutral mutation? Because the so-called solution to Haldane's dilemma is based on the genetic changes being neutral mutation. Haldane calculated that it would take 350 generations for this to become fixed and the population would grow enough for another mutation to happen without the species becoming extinct.

Evolution's problem in this case is time. There is simply not enough time for the evolutionary changes that you are describing to happen.


You got to love that debate form. Complete avoidance of my argument.

That is exactly what I was thinking when you wrote your response. Your so-called evidence of human evolution has nothing to do with how many generations it would take for mutations to become fixed in a population. Which was the argument I put forward in my first comment. If you do not have an answer that is very understandable.

[brunumb]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #99]

Let's one difference as an example:
chromosome fusion events(ex: chromosome 2)
How many generations did it take for this to become fixed in the genome of the future human genome?

Would you consider this event a neutral mutation? Because the so-called solution to Haldane's dilemma is based on the genetic changes being neutral mutation. Haldane calculated that it would take 350 generations for this to become fixed and the population would grow enough for another mutation to happen without the species becoming extinct.

Evolution's problem in this case is time. There is simply not enough time for the evolutionary changes that you are describing to happen.


You got to love that debate form. Complete avoidance of my argument.

That is exactly what I was thinking when you wrote your response. Your so-called evidence of human evolution has nothing to do with how many generations it would take for mutations to become fixed in a population. Which was the argument I put forward in my first comment. If you do not have an answer that is very understandable.

[alexxcJRO]

That is exactly what I was thinking when you wrote your response. Your so-called evidence of human evolution has nothing to do with how many generations it would take for mutations to become fixed in a population. Which was the argument I put forward in my first comment. If you do not have an answer that is very understandable.

Sir you said: “Are you sure you know about DNA stuff?

And yet again are not getting the tenor of the argument. So I will simplify the concept.

Is there any DNA sample from the common ancestor that you say humans and primates are descendants from?

You must think that there is some sample like that in the world. You must be thinking that there is a 7 million-year-old (according to your theory) sample of DNA from that "great ape." Why don't you try to pull that up and show us all.

So our only means of comparison are species that are alive today. The closest species to man according to DNA is a chimp. That is why people say we are descendants of chimps because it is believed, according to the theory you are putting, forward that chimps would share our closest relative.

So what are you trying to say that man and chimps are not related that closely?”

So I tried to provide evidence of common ancestry between chimps and humans and explain some DNA stuff in respect to humans and chimps. Clear the air of the foul smell of “That is why people say we are descendants of chimps”.

I choose to speak about the shared endogenous retrovirus DNA.
Made an entire argument.
I know you are so goddam scared to go off your predetermined path but please overcome the fear. You are a man.

So please don’t avoid again:
Let’s take endogenous retrovirus DNA.

A retrovirus is a type of virus that reproduces by inserting its gene directly into a cell DNA where it becomes a permanent part of that host cell’s genome. This way the virus it “tricks” the cell to make new viruses when it reads the virus genes during coping of DNA in the process of reproduction.

If the virus infects an sperm cell or egg cell that later participate in fertilization the resulting offspring will a copy of the virus DNA. Every cell for that matter.
This might have negative effect on the individual or neutral effect (normal copying errors in virus DNA can inactivate the virus-the sequence of DNA) or a positive effect(virus genes act as extra genetical material that later can mutate a give rise to new functions).
So by this a retrovirus can become a permanent marker in a DNA specie. Scientists call this endogenous viruses.

Human genome contains thousands of such endogenous viruses(stretches of DNA sequences) that match those of retroviruses.
These DNA scars: endogenous viruses show us the unique history of specific virus infections suffered by one individual ancestors.

So if we look at chimp genome and human genome we find evidence for common ancestry. We have same virus genes in the exact same locations in both human and chimp genome.
If humans and chimp did not shared the same history we would not find the same sequences in the same spots.

In the human genome there are 10 million possible insertion spots.
The chance of human and chimp getting infected in the same spot by the same specific type of virus
is far less then 1 in 10 million.

It gets incredibly worse if two individuals having for example 12 similar independent insertions of the same virus.
The chance of 12 virus insertions happening into the exact location in both individuals is unfathomably small.

1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000*1/10000000 = 10^84.

So for 12 insertions we have the probability of 1 in 1x10^84. 10^84 is comparable with the whole atoms in the universe.

Geneticists have found 211 insertions from HERV-W alone in human genome from which 205 are common with chimp.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29351742/



The probability goes to proportions where such a thing is laughably impossible.
This is similar to the heating problem when one posits accelerated processes 4 billions of years of radioactive decay, 4 billions of years of plate tectonics and continental movements, 4 billions of years of geological mountain building and erosion, 4 billions of years of asteroid impacts, 4 billions of years of volcanic activity all cramped in a very short period of time which make it too laughably impossible.

So again dear creationist you are backed into a corner to choose between impossibility and God/Satan tricking us that evolution happened.

Q: What will it be?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #0]

This is similar to the heating problem when one posits accelerated processes 4 billions of years of radioactive decay,

Nuclear fusion takes place in lighting bolts every day somewhere in the world. (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017G ... B/abstract)
Lighting occurs during earthquakes. (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... gy-science)
Nuclear Combustion
"Since February 2000, thousands of sophisticated experiments at the Proton -21 Electrodynamics Research Laboratory (Kiev, Ukraine) have demonstrated nuclear combustion. By producing traces of all known chemical elements and their stable isotopes. (Stanislav Adamenko et al., Controlled Nucleosynthesis: Breakthroughs in Experiment and Theory (Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer Verlag, 2007), pp. 1–773.)"

"In those experiments, a brief (10E-8 second), 50,000-volt electron flow, at relativistic speeds, self-focuses (Z-Pinches) inside a hemispherical electrode target, typically 0.5 mm in diameter. The relative abundance of chemical elements produced generally corresponds to what is in the Earth's Crust.

"The statistical mean curves of the abundance of chemical elements created in our experiments are close to those characteristic in the Earth's crust." (Stanislav Adamenko, “The New Fusion,” ExtraOrdinary Technology, Vol. 4, October-December, 2006, p. 6.) (Physics, Vol. 5, 2015, p. 62.)"

It only takes 50,000 bolts to produce a z-pinch powerful enough to make all of the elements in the Earth's crust. Lighting bolts are 300 million volts and 30,000 amps. So yes lightning bolts in the crust could cause the radioactive elements that we see in the earth's crust. That would also mean that radioactive dating would mean nothing.

Before I start to address and respond I want you to give me all the links to the above.
I want all quoted passages followed by links.
I want to verify everything first.
Waiting.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #104]

Before I start to address and respond I want you to give me all the links to the above.

Some of this is a rehash of similar talking points brought up by ESG before:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=35356

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #103]

That is way too much to copy and paste from post 103 if anyone wants to follow along.

1. So my question is, are these ESV's functional?

a. If they are functional then how do you know the sections came from a virus. Similar sequencing simply means similar functions and just because they look like ERV's does not mean they were placed there by ERV's. They can simply be a design feature.

Some of these have to be design features. For example The mammalian immune system

Interferon is a protein that signals the ERV in three types of humans cells (K562 myeloid-derived cells, HeLa epithelial-derived cells, and primary CD14+ macrophages) to switch on because there is a virus threat. So which came first the production of the interferon or the ERV that produces proteins that fight the invading virus? Interferon does not fight viruses. How could a nonbeneficial function or ERV stay in the body for millions of years?

b. If they are not functional then why are they still in the genome? Because the genome has a use it or, lose it type function.

2. Evolution has a larger problem to answer and that is the evolution of viruses.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #102]

I don't get what you are trying to say. Thanks.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #105]

Yea, but it is better now and you did not refute this argument on our first, second or third go around on it. That is why you keep hearing about it. You will also keep hearing about how there is not enough time for evolution to happen. Just to give you all a preview of what is coming.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #105]

That is if I have time. My schedule has been very full lately.

[Difflugia]

a. If they are functional then how do you know the sections came from a virus. Similar sequencing simply means similar functions and just because they look like ERV's does not mean they were placed there by ERV's. They can simply be a design feature.

Exactly. They were placed there when the Universe was created last Thursday.