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.

[Jose Fly]

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.

LOL...humans didn't evolve from chimps and not every nucleotide difference requires a separate, unique mutation.

Derp.

[Diogenes]

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.

Interesting. I will give creationists the benefit of the doubt and assume they are not being consciously dishonest in how they marshal their data and arguments to support their absurd belief, but the quote mining, the cherry-picking, the false attributions and persistent use of discredited sources make a strong argument for a kindly response seem naive.
I suppose it is only natural, when you believe something absolutely (as if it came directly from God), to feel the compulsion to sustain your personal religious belief; that no matter how powerful the evidence for evolution, no matter how many of the greatest scientists demonstrate the truth of evolution, that they and the evidence must somehow be wrong, thereby inspiring obtuse and absurd arguments.

[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.
I'm trying to help you understand their theories.

You have shown that you understand his theories. Haldane and Kimura believed that the only "loci" as they called them were those that caused amino acid and protein changes. For kimura that was 10,000 loci and for Haldane it was 40,000 loci. So Haldane's example of a change in 1000 loci would have been considered a 2.5% change in the functional genome. A 10000 genome change in Kimura's world would have been a 10% change in the functional genome. A 2.5% change in the nucleotide cites today would take 5E11 years according to Haldane's theory. 5 orders of magnitude off from what he thought was a 2.5% change.

The bottom line is that there is a 1% difference between chimp and human genomes which equates to 35 000 000 nucleotide sites that are different. I took the lower percentage. There is no evidence that the difference in the genome is more like 3%. So according to Haldane's cost analysis theory, it would take 2.1E11 years for a 1% difference to take place and 6.3E11 years for a 3% change. Longer than the age of the universe.

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.

Haldane's 300 generations was an average. Which we can appreciate more today because we know that different sections of the genome are more susceptible to mutation than others. Right!

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

Again the 300 generations is an average. I thought you were teaching me about Haldane's dilemma. Even in his theory, he described major differences in mutation times.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #231]

humans didn't evolve from chimps and not every nucleotide difference requires a separate, unique mutation.

Maybe not but they all require time. And experimentation shows that there is just not enough of that.

[Jose Fly]

Interesting. I will give creationists the benefit of the doubt and assume they are not being consciously dishonest in how they marshal their data and arguments to support their absurd belief, but the quote mining, the cherry-picking, the false attributions and persistent use of discredited sources make a strong argument for a kindly response seem naive.

I usually pose it as a choice between them being dishonest or incompetent. Take your pick I guess.

I suppose it is only natural, when you believe something absolutely (as if it came directly from God), to feel the compulsion to sustain your personal religious belief; that no matter how powerful the evidence for evolution, no matter how many of the greatest scientists demonstrate the truth of evolution, that they and the evidence must somehow be wrong, thereby inspiring obtuse and absurd arguments.

Yep. When one's religious beliefs, and by extension one's identity, self-worth, and sense of purpose, are on the line in a debate, "by any means necessary" becomes acceptable.

[Jose Fly]

Maybe not

LOL, there is no "maybe" about it, and your fundamental error is a fatal flaw to your argument.

but they all require time. And experimentation shows that there is just not enough of that.

Funny how not a single geneticist, population geneticist, or evolutionary biologist agrees with that. But I suppose you expect folks to instead go with your hilariously erroneous estimates and conclusions, eh?

[William]

[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.

If you feel that you have been wronged then, the moderates are here to assist.

[The Barbarian]

The bottom line is that there is a 1% difference between chimp and human genomes which equates to 35 000 000 nucleotide sites that are different. I took the lower percentage. There is no evidence that the difference in the genome is more like 3%. So according to Haldane's cost analysis theory, it would take 2.1E11 years for a 1% difference to take place and 6.3E11 years for a 3% change. Longer than the age of the universe.

If the difference is 1%, then you need to consider how long it takes for 0.5% to happen. Do you see why?

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.

Haldane's 300 generations was an average.

It would seem to me that variation of 2.1E11 years to 200 years is so expansive as to be effectively meaningless.

Which we can appreciate more today because we know that different sections of the genome are more susceptible to mutation than others. Right!

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

Again the 300 generations is an average. I thought you were teaching me about Haldane's dilemma. Even in his theory, he described major differences in mutation times.

Mostly for reasons I've already explained. A well-fitted population in a constant environment will evolve very little. A relatively unfit population in an new environment will evolve a lot. Usually going extinct thereby, but also frequently speciating.

Let's take another look...

Neanderthal DNA is about 99.7 similar to the DNA of anatomically modern humans. (most of us carry a 1%-3% Neanderthal DNA). So the differences evolved over something like 100,000 years. Again, reality.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #236]

Funny how not a single geneticist, population geneticist, or evolutionary biologist agrees with that. But I suppose you expect folks to instead go with your hilariously erroneous estimates and conclusions, eh?

Yes there are.

Here are 50 and why they believe in 6 day creation. https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/in-six-days/

https://answersingenesis.org/bios/nathaniel-jeanson/

https://answersingenesis.org/bios/georgia-purdom/

https://creation.com/james-s-allan-genetics-in-six-days

Ben Carson

There are more like most of the professors at Liberty University and Cedarville University.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #236]

Funny how not a single geneticist, population geneticist, or evolutionary biologist agrees with that. But I suppose you expect folks to instead go with your hilariously erroneous estimates and conclusions, eh?

Yes there are.

Here are 50 and why they believe in 6 day creation. https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/in-six-days/

The very first example from your source is a failure:

Jeremy L. Walter, Mechanical Engineering

A mechanical engineer is not a geneticist, a population geneticist, nor an evolutionary biologist. There are plenty others on the list who also fail to qualify for your claim.


Tcg