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 The Barbarian in post #0]

I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision
https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/rid ... ldane2.pdf

Not even Haldane thought it was a serious problem for evolution. And one of the reasons that it's not, is because it only applies to alleles under selection, and not neutral mutations that have little or no selective pressure.

You are missing Haldane's and Kimura's theories. The driving force of Haldane's theory was natural selection which did not care about neutral mutations. The driving force of Kimura's theory was genetic drift which was dependent on neutral mutations. In fact, Kimura used Haldane's argument in support of his Neutral theory.

You also have to remember that Haldane's and Kimura's theories were developed when over 99% of the genome was thought to be inert. For example, Kimura in his 1983 textbook page 248 argued that there were only 10,000 gene loci available to suffer harmful mutations. So two species that had a 1000 loci difference would be a difference of 10%.

• "Presumably the same kind of process occurs in evolution. The number of loci in a vertebrate species has been estimated at about 40,000. Good Species even when closely related, may differ at several thousand loci, even if the differences at most of them are very slight. but it takes as many deaths, or their equivalents, to replace a gene by one producing a barely distinguishable phenotype as by one producing a very different one. If two species differ at 1000 loci, and the mean rate of gene substitution, as has been suggested, is one per 300 generations, it will take at least 300,000 generations to generate an interspecific difference." https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/rid ... ldane2.pdf

According to Ian Musgrave (2007), it generally is accepted that most gene substitutions are the result of neutral mutations, which become fixed by means other than natural selection. Haldane’s estimate concerns only the rate of fixation for gene substitutions by natural selection, so it does not place a limit on the rate of gene substitution as a whole. To know whether Haldane’s dilemma poses a potential problem for the evolution of humans requries first that one first determine how many positively-selected gene substitutions actually have occurred since the human-chimpanzee split. Musgrave (2007) sets a generous upper bound of around 960 such substitutions, with the actual number likely somewhere between 340 and 580.
https://ninewells.vuletic.com/science/d ... evolution/

WOW!! 340 to 960 could that really be true?

Because:

• Telomeres in Chimps and other apes are about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) long. Humans stand out from primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long. Is not that 13,000 differences right there?

• Research by Dr. David A. DeWitt has revealed new stunning insights regarding the major differences between human and chimp DNA: There exist 40–45 million bases [DNA “letters”] in humans missing from chimps and about the same number present in chimps that are absent from man. (Wow, that seems like a lot more than 580)

• The difference between humans and chimpanzees includes about 45 million human base pairs that chimps don’t have and about 45 million base pairs in the chimp absent from the human.

• the difference in the nucleotides 1.2 percent.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
If two species differ at 1000 loci, and the mean rate of gene substitution, as has been suggested, is one per 300 generations, it will take at least 300,000 generations to generate an interspecific difference.

This is the problem with estimating, forcing that estimation into analysis, then proposing that estimated analysis must be corrrect.

[Diogenes]

According to Ian Musgrave (2007), it generally is accepted that most gene substitutions are the result of neutral mutations, which become fixed by means other than natural selection. Haldane’s estimate concerns only the rate of fixation for gene substitutions by natural selection, so it does not place a limit on the rate of gene substitution as a whole. To know whether Haldane’s dilemma poses a potential problem for the evolution of humans requries first that one first determine how many positively-selected gene substitutions actually have occurred since the human-chimpanzee split. Musgrave (2007) sets a generous upper bound of around 960 such substitutions, with the actual number likely somewhere between 340 and 580.
https://ninewells.vuletic.com/science/d ... evolution/

WOW!! 340 to 960 could that really be true?

You attribute your quote to https://ninewells.vuletic.com/science/d ... t-a-puppy/
a site that does not contain the passage you cite. It's about speculation that Darwin confessed to "beating a puppy."

This is a long standing practice of yours, to quote mine, and list long passages you apparently don't even read, much less understand, then thru sloppiness or design, attach a false citation to accompany your non sequiturs. These shoddy efforts well represent your understanding of science in general, evolution in particular, and inveterate failure to accurately gather facts.

Why do you persist with what even you have called "dissembling?" You are fooling no one.
Instead, by faulty logic, poor citations, and referencing false facts, you are making the case for evolution rather than for the pseudoscience of creationism.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #0]

I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision
https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/rid ... ldane2.pdf

Not even Haldane thought it was a serious problem for evolution. And one of the reasons that it's not, is because it only applies to alleles under selection, and not neutral mutations that have little or no selective pressure.

You are missing Haldane's and Kimura's theories.

I'm trying to help you understand their theories.

The driving force of Haldane's theory was natural selection which did not care about neutral mutations.

It's not a theory. But if it was, it would be dead, since real-life examples of evolution have not supported his predictions.

The driving force of Kimura's theory was genetic drift which was dependent on neutral mutations. In fact, Kimura used Haldane's argument in support of his Neutral theory.

This is true, but you don't seem to realize the implications of that.

You also have to remember that Haldane's and Kimura's theories were developed when over 99% of the genome was thought to be inert.

No.

For example, Kimura in his 1983 textbook page 248 argued that there were only 10,000 gene loci available to suffer harmful mutations. So two species that had a 1000 loci difference would be a difference of 10%.

In the 1960s, I was reading journal articles about the functions of non-coding DNA.

"Presumably the same kind of process occurs in evolution. The number of loci in a vertebrate species has been estimated at about 40,000. Good Species even when closely related, may differ at several thousand loci, even if the differences at most of them are very slight. but it takes as many deaths, or their equivalents, to replace a gene by one producing a barely distinguishable phenotype as by one producing a very different one. If two species differ at 1000 loci, and the mean rate of gene substitution, as has been suggested, is one per 300 generations, it will take at least 300,000 generations to generate an interspecific difference." https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/rid ... ldane2.pdf

Trends in Ecology and Evolution
Volume 19, Issue 3, March 2004, Pages 111-114
Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages?


Took about 200 years (involving about 200 generations). Reality, again. When Europeans came to North America, there was no such thing as the apple maggot fly.

The difference between humans and chimpanzees includes about 45 million human base pairs that chimps don’t have and about 45 million base pairs in the chimp absent from the human.

Did you know that at the base-pair level your genome is 99.9 percent the same as all of the humans around you?
https://www.genome.gov/dna-day/15-ways/ ... -variation

Humans have about 3.2 billion base pairs (human genome project data)

So... humans differ by about 3,200,000 base pairs. So by your guy's estimate, this would have taken about 960 million generations. Or about 11.5 billion years. No, I don't think so. Reality, again. (edited; hit wrong operator on calculator)

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps another way to put it is another Paulos quote:
“The paradoxical conclusion is that it would be very unlikely for unlikely events not to occur”

____________________
*For a more complete discussion: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/really-c ... _directory

Yep. I endorse and recommend Paulos' book. It's very useful. Wildly improbable events happen constantly in this world. If you calculate the likelihood of any particular order of cards in a well-shuffled deck, it comes out to a very, very, very tiny number (1/52!).
Which is about 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000124

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #223]

You attribute your quote to https://ninewells.vuletic.com/science/d ... t-a-puppy/
a site that does not contain the passage you cite. It's about speculation that Darwin confessed to "beating a puppy."

This is a long standing practice of yours, to quote mine, and list long passages you apparently don't even read, much less understand, then thru sloppiness or design, attach a false citation to accompany your non sequiturs. These shoddy efforts well represent your understanding of science in general, evolution in particular, and inveterate failure to accurately gather facts.

Why do you persist with what even you have called "dissembling?" You are fooling no one.
Instead, by faulty logic, poor citations, and referencing false facts, you are making the case for evolution rather than for the pseudoscience of creationism.

If you would like to join in on the conversation that would be fine. But can you make a comment about what I said and not emotional insults? But whatever.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #223]

You attribute your quote to https://ninewells.vuletic.com/science/d ... t-a-puppy/
a site that does not contain the passage you cite. It's about speculation that Darwin confessed to "beating a puppy."

This is a long standing practice of yours, to quote mine, and list long passages you apparently don't even read, much less understand, then thru sloppiness or design, attach a false citation to accompany your non sequiturs. These shoddy efforts well represent your understanding of science in general, evolution in particular, and inveterate failure to accurately gather facts.

Why do you persist with what even you have called "dissembling?" You are fooling no one.
Instead, by faulty logic, poor citations, and referencing false facts, you are making the case for evolution rather than for the pseudoscience of creationism.

If you would like to join in on the conversation that would be fine. But can you make a comment about what I said and not emotional insults? But whatever.

The comments are critiques and it is necessary to see them in that manner, rather than simply hand-wave them away as "insults" even that the critiques may evoke a feeling of being slighted...they are more for the purpose of encouraging one to dig deeper...

[Jose Fly]

Pretty standard behavior among internet creationists....do something dishonest, then when someone calls them out on it, cry "personal attack" and hope that distracts everyone from their original dishonesty.

I still maintain that it's impossible to advocate creationism in an honest manner.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #0]

You attribute your quote to https://ninewells.vuletic.com/science/d ... t-a-puppy/
a site that does not contain the passage you cite. It's about speculation that Darwin confessed to "beating a puppy."

Oh, this is one of those priceless moments.

This is not my quote. I was simply commenting on a quote that someone else quoted to support their argument. Although I do think Darwin may have beaten his dog. It was kind of a thing back then.

This is a long standing practice of yours, to quote mine, and list long passages you apparently don't even read, much less understand, then thru sloppiness or design, attach a false citation to accompany your non sequiturs. These shoddy efforts well represent your understanding of science in general, evolution in particular, and inveterate failure to accurately gather facts.

Do you mean like you just did?

Why do you persist with what even you have called "dissembling?" You are fooling no one.

Yea I will be hearing about that one for a while.

Instead, by faulty logic, poor citations, and referencing false facts, you are making the case for evolution rather than for the pseudoscience of creationism.

How can you reference false facts? You mean the professional researchers that I quote did not really earn their degrees from a major university, like the people... Well, I guess I cannot say that. Do you quote anyone?

You continue to demonstrate you do not understand evolution. Evolution simply describes change, how organisms change over thousands of generations. The idea of 'it' progressing is a faulty one because there is no 'purpose.' It just happens. There are billions of mutations. Most of them result in no apparent or significant change. Many result in extinction.
More than 99 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... extinction

That is the question that we are discussing right now. How many generations does change take?

• There are over 40 million bases in humans that are missing from chimps. Dr. David A. DeWitt: Liberty University

• The human Y chromosome almost completely misaligns with chimpanzees N. Archidiacono, C.T. Storlazzi, C. Spalluto, A.S. Ricco, R. Marzella, M. Rocchi, “Evolution of chromosome Y in primates.” Chromosoma 107 (1998): 241–246

• Telomeres in Chimps and other apes are about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) long. Humans stand out from primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long. S. Kakuo, K. Asaoka, and T. Ide, “Human is a unique species among primates in terms of telomere length.” Biochemistry Biophysics Research Communication, 263 (1999): 308–314

• there are over 35 million differences in the nucleotides of the genome.

So how long would it take for 35 million differences to become fixed in the genome?

• Any synonymous or Nonsynonymous change is deleterious. https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/art ... 20proteins.

You said that most mutations are neutral. That would mean the mechanism your evolution would have to use would be genetic drift. Genetic drift is totally random so a trait is just as likely to lose a trait as it would be to keep the trait.

So how long would this "evolution" take?

Let me make the math easy for you. Don't want to make it to difficult to understand.

There are 35 000 000 differences between the human and the chump or chimp. Most "evolutionists" believe that human-chump or chimp split took place around 6 million years ago. 35 000 000 /6 000 000 is 5.8. That means there had to be 5.8 nucleotide changes per year to become fixed in the human genome. Or 116 per generation. There is no experiment anywhere that shows that kind of fixation.

Wow! So you believe that 99 percent of all organisms that have become extinct were due to evolution? That is an interesting thought. So what about the 5 extinction events in which in a single event 99% of the life was thought to become extinct? https://earthhow.com/mass-extinctions/

BTW, posing the question, "How is there reality without God?," merely demonstrates a lack of imagination and curiosity. 'Reality,' the Earth, the universe, the animals, came about thru natural processes, many of which we understand. Assuming a 'god' did it is the lazy, unimaginative way out; a way that shows no curiosity.

This comment really shows how little you read on this subject or your lack of understanding of the subject matter.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... it-exists/

https://www.livescience.com/objective-r ... cists.html

https://www.foxnews.com/science/more-th ... study-says

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... ive-exist/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... snt-exist/

Physics right now is questioning the very existence of reality.

You know before you criticize and insult you might want to know what you are talking about.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William in post #227]

The comments are critiques and it is necessary to see them in that manner, rather than simply hand-wave them away as "insults" even that the critiques may evoke a feeling of being slighted...they are more for the purpose of encouraging one to dig deeper...

Critiques give examples. Insults are blanket statements, which is what the comment was. I encourage you to dig deeper on this.