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 DrNoGods in post #0]

Sure, but their efforts are mainly towards unsolved problems so they are free to initiate and investigate all kinds of hypotheses regarding these open problems. Multiverses, string theory, etc. are things that fall out from various ideas or mathematical exercises, but it is observation and experiment that ultimately weeds out the good ideas from the bad (or wrong) ones. Observation says that macroscopic objects like trees do not behave the same way as microscopic objects like atoms and subatomic particles and fields (or rather, their quantum mechanical aspects are so many orders of magnitude below their macroscopic aspects that the quantum effects are entirely negligible for the general characteristics and behavior of trees).

Origin of the universe ideas are still hypotheses and people are trying to figure it out. We may never get there, but a creator god hypothesis has yet to be shown any more valid than the various scientific hypotheses. Yet many creationists default to the creator god explanation simply because the various scientific explanations have yet to converge on a solution, despite the god hypothesis also (so far) failing to be shown correct (ie. no gods, of the thousands humans have invented, have ever been demonstrated to exist).

A strictly materialistic universe must conform to the mathematics of cosmology.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #342]

A strictly materialistic universe must conform to the mathematics of cosmology.

Is there any reason to believe it doesn't? There may be errors in the mathematics of cosmology because "everything" about the cosmos isn't understood yet (far from it). The mathematics of cosmology has to advance together with our continuously growing understanding of how things actually do work. God beings would presumably also have to conform to the mathematics of cosmology would they not? Or are gods exempt?

[The Barbarian]

Yea, well about the dark-skinned Briton; are you tired of being continually wrong yet?

Ancient 'dark-skinned' Briton Cheddar Man find may not be true

A Briton who lived 10,000 years ago had dark brown skin and blue eyes. At least, that’s what dozens of news stories published this month – including our own – stated as fact. But one of the geneticists who performed the research says the conclusion is less certain, and according to others, we are not even close to knowing the skin color of any ancient human. https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... t-be-true/

Mark Thomas, a scientist at University College London worked with the Natural History Museum in London to reconstruct Cheddar Man’s face. First, they measured Cheddar Man’s skull and found that he had a thick, substantial cranium and light jaw. They then sequenced his entire genome, becoming the oldest Briton to have his genes mapped. His genes revealed that Cheddar Man had dark skin, blue eyes, and wavy hair. Then, using
3D scans, Adrie and Alfons Kennis, professional Dutch model makers, made a model of Cheddar Man’s face. The genes that determine our skin color are spread over several chromosomes. There are many variants, or alleles, for skin pigmentation which can be seen in the largespectrum of skin color among humans around the world. Dissimilarly, eye color is determined by one specific gene, and has one specific variant in that gene. Why isthis? Scientists are still not sure. It is also unknown for sure why humans developed lighter skin at all. The most widely accepted hypothesis is that different skin pigmentations are more beneficial depending on where you live. All humans are descended from the first Homo sapiens population that evolved in Africa. Once people migrated out of Africa, however, conditions were different. People living in temperateareas, like Britain, received less sunlight, and lighter skin is known to allow more UV radiation into the body. UV radiation breaks down vitamin D which is essential to the development of healthy bones. his means that having lighter skin was more beneficial than dark skin for people living in areas where sunlight was not as readily available. The discovery of Cheddar Man’s dark skin implies that skin pigmentation in Western Europeevolved relatively recently in terms of human history.
Bennett, M. (2018). Who is Cheddar Man and What Does He Teach Us?. D.U.Quark, 2 (2). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/
duquark/vol2/iss2/6

The dissent is no doubt WRT the "gene gradient" theory of Cavalli-Sforza, which has been since revised, showing the gradient actually was at right angles to the previously-inferred axis. And there's more support for the finding that light skins came later...

Two mutations responsible for light skin, however, tell quite a different story. Both seem to have been rare in the Mesolithic, but present in a large majority by the Bronze Age (3,000 years later), both in Europe and the steppe. As both areas received a significant influx of Middle Eastern farmers during this time, one might speculate that the mutations arose in the Middle East. They were probably then driven to high levels by natural selection, as they allowed the production of sufficient vitamin D further north despite relatively little sunlight, and/or better suited people to the new diet associated with farming.
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-ancient-d ... -skin.html

Farmers tend to have diets lower in vitamin D.

The mutations described above have been deliberately selected in the laboratory as a model for the way biochemical pathways might evolve so that they are appropriately organized with respect to both the cell and its environment.

Nope. In fact, none of the actual mutations were predicted. Only the evolution of a new system was predicted. And Hall was completely surprised by the evolution of a regulator that was not predicted at all. But it was adaptive since the metabolic cost of the enzyme would only be incurred if there was a substrate there to be utilized.

Dude just stop and admit defeat. The above is a direct quote from his 1984 paper!! found here (https://academic.oup.com/genetics/artic ... ogin=false) page 343 last paragraph (so you can find it)

The mutations described above have been deliberately selected in the laboratory as a model for the way biochemical pathways might evolve so that they are appropriately organized with respect to both the cell and its environment. It is reasonable to ask whether this model might have any relationship to the real world outside the laboratory. If it is assumed that the selection is strictly forlactose utilization, then a growth advantage exists only when all three mutations are present simultaneously. Any one of the mutations alone could well beneutral (it is unlikely that any would be disadvantageous); but neutral mutations do enter populations by random chance events, and are fixed by a chance process termed genetic drift. In the background of a neutral ebgA or ebgR mutation, a second mutation in the alternative gene increases the fitness slightly
by increasing the survival of the double mutant in the presence of lactose. Selection could thus increase the frequency of double mutants in the population. The third mutation, occurring in the background of the double mutant, is clearlystrongly advantageous.

Hall asks the question and then answers in the affirmative. Quote-mining usually trims off meaning, as it did this time. Notice that Hall also indicates the mutations were selected as a model for evolutionary change after they occurred. I don't think you read this very carefully. And it's not just Hall's opinion. For example, the "nylon bug" evolved the same way...

Again, the above is a direct quote from his 1984 paper!!! Same spot as above

And edited to remove the context. Yep.

No, that's wrong, too. For example, when Dr. Wise wrote his paper, there were some issues about the evolution of baleen whales from toothed whales. But recently...
Prehistoric Whale Jaw Bone Sheds Light on the Evolution of Baleen
Hidden in a museums’ collections for years, a fossil provides a link between past and present feeding mechanisms
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180970917/

Another fossil shows that suction feeding evolved before baleen. Baleen is not required; it merely makes the process more efficient.
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-evolution ... hales.html

Why do you keep bringing Dr. Wise up? He does not believe in whale evolution.

For one thing, he's quite knowledgeable about that. It's one of problems that vexes him; you see, the fossil record of whales not only shows a very good evidence for the diversification of whales (he admits that it is very good evidence), but also it is a major problem for "flood theory":

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon
[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third smaller;67 Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whaletransition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale
fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments. At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09 ... 16-222.pdf

To be sure, Dr. Wise thinks that there must be a reasonable explanation for this in a creationist context. He just can't find one. And the entire assemblage of diversified cetacean fossils is more evidence that Haldane was correct when he assumed that his initial findings would have to be revised to fit reality.

(Denial of phylogenetics as a useful tool in science)

That's a testable belief. We can,for example consider how many times phylogenetics predicted transitional forms later found to exist. In my lifetime in science those include fish to tetrapods, anapsids to turtles, stem amphibians to frogs, forest apes to humans, wasps to ants, cockroaches to termites, dinosaurs to birds, ... very long list. So it's been a very productive and efficient process. All those predicted forms eventually confirmed phylogenetics.

Not in the case of whales. Wrong AGAIN!!

Sorry, that's wrong. As you realized when you corrected your math, an artiodactyl ungulate (hippotomus) is as closely related genetically to whales as we are to chimps. Which confirms the fossil record of early whale transitionals, as well as the anatomical data (such as ungulate digestive systems in whales).

“While the monophyly of cetaceans is widely accepted, the origin of and evolutionary relationships among the major groups of cetaceans is more problematic since morphological and molecular analyses reach very different conclusions. Indeed, based on the conventional interpretation of the morphological and behavioral data set, the echolocating toothed whales (about 67 species) and the filter-feeding baleen whales (10 species) are considered as two distinct monophyletic groups . . . On the other hand, phylogenetic analysis of DNA . . . and amino acid . . . sequences contradict this long-accepted taxonomic division. Michel C. Milinkovitch, “Molecular phylogeny of cetaceans prompts revision of morphological transformations” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10, no. 6 (1995): 328–334,

From your source:
While current interpretation of the morphological and behavioural data sets supports toothed-whale monophyly, molecular phylogenies contradict this long-accepted taxonomic subdivision. The molecular data indicate that one group of toothed whales, the sperm whales, Is more closely related to the morphologically highly divergent baleen whales than to other odontocetes.

As Dr. Wise points out, the fossil record indicates that baleen whales evolved from toothed whales. The evidence indicates that they are monophyletic, arising from one group of toothed whales. That's pretty much what I was taught in the 60s. The surprise is how long baleen itself took to evolve. We have fossils of gulp feeders without baleen, which (not surprisingly) have features found in sperm whales. As Dr. Wise points out; "toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales."

Actually, scientists had long assumed that the sperm whales were more closely related to balleen whales than were other toothed whales. When I was an undergrad in the 1960s, I found one such phylogeny in a textbook. You seem to have assumed that was news.

Nope. As you learned, O alleles are not fixed in any population.

No, I did not learn that, and if you did learn that we are off the reservation.

Show us a defined human population with only O blood type. What do you have?

Since evolution can proceed without it (although it usually involves mutation) right. It's not evolution; it's an agency of evolution, but not the only one. Fixation, for example, is evolution, and no mutation is necessary. Recombination is evolution, and no mutation is necessary. Hybridization is evolution and no mutation is necessary. Do you remember what the scientific definition of biological evolution is?

NO, it cannot. Speciation cannot happen without mutation.

Well, let's take a look...
Hybrid speciation is a form of speciation where hybridization between two different species leads to a new species, reproductively isolated from the parent species. Previously, reproductive isolation between two species and their parents was thought to be particularly difficult to achieve, and thus hybrid species were thought to be very rare. With DNA analysis becoming more accessible in the 1990s, hybrid speciation has been shown to be a somewhat common phenomenon, particularly in plants...Hybrid speciation in animals is primarily homoploid. While thought not to be very common, a few animal species are the result of hybridization, mostly insects such as tephritid fruitflies that inhabit Lonicera plants[20] and Heliconius butterflies,[21][22] as well as some fish,[15] one marine mammal, the clymene dolphin,[23] a few birds.[24] and certain Bufotes toads.[25]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciation

Some authors emphasized the importance of natural selection to speed up speciation, but the mutation is crucial in speciation because reproductive barriers cannot be generated without mutations.https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/do ... 028/580171

See above. Your assumption is wrong.

You've forgotten again what biological evolution is. It's a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Most creationist organizations have now admitted that is a fact. Some of them even admit the fact of new species and genera or even families evolving from other organisms. They just don't want to call it evolution. But as you see, that's what it is.

You already know that's wrong. Remember when I showed you that the four points of the Darwinian theory remain as solidly demonstrated as ever? But Darwin's theory has been modified by genetics, which explained how new traits can spread in a population, by punctuated equilibrium, which explains why most speciation is allopatric, and so on.

And that brings us back to Haldane's Dilemma which proves that evolution cannot happen.

In spite of your beliefs, bacteria evolve new enzyme systems, new species evolve from others, and we see evolution proceeding every day. Remember what biological evolution is? "A change in allele frequencies in a population over time."

(more theories that say bacteria can't do what we observe them doing)

Reality still wins.

They are just facts. Darwin pointed them out before we know about mutations or recombination, or those other things. But that's what evolution is: "descent with modification" as Darwin put it.

Not without mutation it isn't

See above. Hybridization speciations require no mutations at all.

Not according to the Researcher that did the research.

Too bad for him, then. Dr. Hall closely monitored the mutations and phenotypes that evolved thereby. Reality beats anyone's opinions.

I agree that Reality beats anyone's opinions. The researcher above was Dr. Hall.

I put up the entire paragraph for you. It doesn't say what you wanted it to say.
Do you want to read it again? See above. Maybe it hurts when reality smacks you in the face. But that's the reality. Quote-mining is a losing propostion.

As I already showed you, this is incorrect. Like many creationists, you misunderstood what Luria and Delbruck meant by "random." It means that favorable mutations arrive randomly, and not in response to need. If you learn nothing else about mutations, learn this.

Mutations occur without regard to the needs of the organisms, meaning they are random and not directed for or against what the organisms needs to survive.

Wrong AGAIN!!!

Sorry. Data beats anyone's quote. Instead of editing out snippets from some person or another, get some evidence. It works much better.

You forgot to tell the bacteria. Because no one told them it was impossible, they just went ahead and did it.

No, I don't think so.

Doesent matter. You might want to actually read the paper you are trying to quote:

EVOLUTION OF A REGULATED OPERON
IN THE LABORATORY
BARRY G. HALL
Microbiology Section, U-44, University of Connecticut, Storm, CT. 06268
Manuscript received November 6, 1981
Revised copy accepted April 12, 1982
ABSTRACT
The evolution of new metabolic functions is being studied in the labora-
tory using the EBG system of E . coli as a model system. I t is demonstrated
that the evolution of lactose utilization by ZucZ deletion strains requires a
series of structural and regulatory gene mutations. Two structural gene mu-
tations act to increase the activity of ebg enzyme toward lactose, and to
permit ebg enzyme to convert lactose into allolactose, an inducer of the lac
operon. A regulatory mutation increases the sensitivity of the ebg repressor
to lactose, and permits sufficient ebg enzyme activity for growth. The result-
ing fully evolved ebg operon regulates its own expression, and also regulates
the synthesis of the lactose permease.

No one planned any of those mutations, which were unlike any other before. They evolved from different molecules and then a regulator evolved which no one anticipated. No point in denying the fact.

Wrong, Wrong Wrong do you want to read Dr. Hall again

I just quoted him for you.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #342]

Is there any reason to believe it doesn't? There may be errors in the mathematics of cosmology because "everything" about the cosmos isn't understood yet (far from it). The mathematics of cosmology has to advance together with our continuously growing understanding of how things actually do work. God beings would presumably also have to conform to the mathematics of cosmology would they not? Or are gods exempt?

It is not the mathematics of cosmology it is the mathematics of quantum mechanics that cosmology has to follow. Really atoms are in a super positional state until they are observed or measured for Difflugia. No one is comfortable with this fact. And some physicists believe that quantum mechanics is incomplete but that has not been shown to be the case. Especially in the latest research which shows that interaction with matter does not break the wave function. And I imagine that it is especially disturbing to a materialist because that would mean that every new observation that man makes is breaking the wave function of the particles but that is not what we seem to observe. Hence the crazy theories we see in cosmology. And this is why reality as we understand it cannot exist with out a creator God.

No God would not have to conform to the physics of this universe because He exists outside of this universe. I do like how AquniasforGod put this thought even if he does not agree with me.

God doesn't observe the universe in a way that he comes to know new things. He knows all things as one eternal act. God's observation thus would have no effect on waveforms. Waveforms are affected by observations which change the knowledge base of the system. We are part of the system, not eternally all knowing, so if the observation makes available data to us, then that affects the system.

God is not part of the system. God eternally knowing how the system works doesn't change the knowledge base of the system.

Also, God can create the system in such a way that our observations affect the system but his never do.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #343]

Yea, well about the dark-skinned Briton; are you tired of being continually wrong yet?
Ancient 'dark-skinned' Briton Cheddar Man find may not be true

A Briton who lived 10,000 years ago had dark brown skin and blue eyes. At least, that’s what dozens of news stories published this month – including our own – stated as fact. But one of the geneticists who performed the research says the conclusion is less certain, and according to others, we are not even close to knowing the skin color of any ancient human. https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... t-be-true/
Mark Thomas, a scientist at University College London worked with the Natural History Museum in London to reconstruct Cheddar Man’s face. First, they measured Cheddar Man’s skull and found that he had a thick, substantial cranium and light jaw. They then sequenced his entire genome, becoming the oldest Briton to have his genes mapped. His genes revealed that Cheddar Man had dark skin, blue eyes, and wavy hair. Then, using
3D scans, Adrie and Alfons Kennis, professional Dutch model makers, made a model of Cheddar Man’s face. The genes that determine our skin color are spread over several chromosomes. There are many variants, or alleles, for skin pigmentation which can be seen in the largespectrum of skin color among humans around the world. Dissimilarly, eye color is determined by one specific gene, and has one specific variant in that gene. Why isthis? Scientists are still not sure. It is also unknown for sure why humans developed lighter skin at all. The most widely accepted hypothesis is that different skin pigmentations are more beneficial depending on where you live. All humans are descended from the first Homo sapiens population that evolved in Africa. Once people migrated out of Africa, however, conditions were different. People living in temperateareas, like Britain, received less sunlight, and lighter skin is known to allow more UV radiation into the body. UV radiation breaks down vitamin D which is essential to the development of healthy bones. his means that having lighter skin was more beneficial than dark skin for people living in areas where sunlight was not as readily available. The discovery of Cheddar Man’s dark skin implies that skin pigmentation in Western Europeevolved relatively recently in terms of human history.
Bennett, M. (2018). Who is Cheddar Man and What Does He Teach Us?. D.U.Quark, 2 (2). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/
duquark/vol2/iss2/6

The dissent is no doubt WRT the "gene gradient" theory of Cavalli-Sforza, which has been since revised, showing the gradient actually was at right angles to the previously-inferred axis. And there's more support for the finding that light skins came later...

Two mutations responsible for light skin, however, tell quite a different story. Both seem to have been rare in the Mesolithic, but present in a large majority by the Bronze Age (3,000 years later), both in Europe and the steppe. As both areas received a significant influx of Middle Eastern farmers during this time, one might speculate that the mutations arose in the Middle East. They were probably then driven to high levels by natural selection, as they allowed the production of sufficient vitamin D further north despite relatively little sunlight, and/or better suited people to the new diet associated with farming.
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-ancient-d ... -skin.html

Dude, I cited the retraction of the article you cited.

Dude this does nothing to my argument. Haldane believed in evolution. He believed that mutations could occur and become fixed in the genome. He was simply calculating how long that would take. And all of your examples support his view.

• Human skin color even if I grant you that this is evolution as Haldane would. Does not help your argument but it hurts it. 2 mutations taking 20000 years to become fixed in a portion of the population is a real problem. At that rate, the 40 million mutations from a chimp to a human would take 400 billion years. I do not think there is enough time for that.

• How long did it take Hall to grow ecoli that he observed the mutations in? Let's say a year. Ecoli in a year can have anywhere from 2 to 3 thousand generations. Let's say it was 2000 generations. That means that each of the three mutations averaged 666 generations to occur. So then that means the the 40 million mutations that are needed to go from a chimp to human would take 530 billion years.

• Or let's take your nylon example. How long did it take the bacteria to produce this bacteria? 10 years? 2000 times 10= 20000 generations. If it took 10 mutations that means that each mutation would take 2000 generations. So the 40 million mutations between chimps and humans would take almost 2 trillion years.

That is the argument, not some morphological fairy tale.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #343]

The mutations described above have been deliberately selected in the laboratory as a model for the way biochemical pathways might evolve so that they are appropriately organized with respect to both the cell and its environment. It is reasonable to ask whether this model might have any relationship to the real world outside the laboratory. If it is assumed that the selection is strictly forlactose utilization, then a growth advantage exists only when all three mutations are present simultaneously. Any one of the mutations alone could well beneutral (it is unlikely that any would be disadvantageous); but neutral mutations do enter populations by random chance events, and are fixed by a chance process termed genetic drift. In the background of a neutral ebgA or ebgR mutation, a second mutation in the alternative gene increases the fitness slightly
by increasing the survival of the double mutant in the presence of lactose. Selection could thus increase the frequency of double mutants in the population. The third mutation, occurring in the background of the double mutant, is clearlystrongly advantageous.

Hall asks the question and then answers in the affirmative. Quote-mining usually trims off meaning, as it did this time. Notice that Hall also indicates the mutations were selected as a model for evolutionary change after they occurred. I don't think you read this very carefully. And it's not just Hall's opinion. For example, the "nylon bug" evolved the same way...

Hall said:

• He deliberately selected the mutations in the laboratory.

• He selected them as a model for a biochemical pathway that MIGHT evolve.

• He said it was a reasonable question to ask whether this model might have any relationship to the real world OUTSIDE the LABORATORY.

Conclusion this was a laboratory experiment like I said it was. Your nylon bug has no bearing on Hall's experiment and what he did and said.

Whether this happens in nature is not my argument. My argument is with how long this "evolution" took. If it took a year then that would be around 2000 generations for 3 mutations which means that it would take the 40 million mutation events between man and chimp. 530 billion years that is my argument.

To be sure, Dr. Wise thinks that there must be a reasonable explanation for this in a creationist context. He just can't find one. And the entire assemblage of diversified cetacean fossils is more evidence that Haldane was correct when he assumed that his initial findings would have to be revised to fit reality.

It is fine if he does but has nothing to do with my argument and Haldane's dilemma. You have yet to cite an example that does not prove that Haldane's dilemma is still a valid argument. In fact, all of your examples have proved Haldane's dilemma. Including your whale example in which there would have to be around 80 million mutations events so according to Haldane's dilemma is it would take over 200 billion years.

That's a testable belief. We can,for example consider how many times phylogenetics predicted transitional forms later found to exist. In my lifetime in science those include fish to tetrapods, anapsids to turtles, stem amphibians to frogs, forest apes to humans, wasps to ants, cockroaches to termites, dinosaurs to birds, ... very long list. So it's been a very productive and efficient process. All those predicted forms eventually confirmed phylogenetics.

Not in the case of the whale it does not work. And usually, these phylogenetics studies produce connections that could not exist. Like for example the dino to bird example:

• One of the biggest dilemmas for those who want to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds is that the so-called feathered dinosaurs found thus far are dated to be about 20 million years more recent than Archaeopteryx. This is a problem for evolution because Archaeopteryx is now generally recognized to be a true bird. P.J. Currie et al., eds., Feathered Dragons: Studies on the Transition from Dinosaurs to Birds, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 2004. https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... nto-birds/

That is commonplace in your phylogenetic trees.

Sorry, that's wrong. As you realized when you corrected your math, an artiodactyl ungulate (hippotomus) is as closely related genetically to whales as we are to chimps. Which confirms the fossil record of early whale transitionals, as well as the anatomical data (such as ungulate digestive systems in whales).

We are 8% different than chimps that is fine with me. But being the same as human and chimpys still does not help your counterargument. it would still take to long.

EVOLUTION OF A REGULATED OPERON
IN THE LABORATORY
BARRY G. HALL
Microbiology Section, U-44, University of Connecticut, Storm, CT. 06268
Manuscript received November 6, 1981
Revised copy accepted April 12, 1982
ABSTRACT
The evolution of new metabolic functions is being studied in the labora-
tory using the EBG system of E . coli as a model system. I t is demonstrated
that the evolution of lactose utilization by ZucZ deletion strains requires a
series of structural and regulatory gene mutations. Two structural gene mu-
tations act to increase the activity of ebg enzyme toward lactose, and to
permit ebg enzyme to convert lactose into allolactose, an inducer of the lac
operon. A regulatory mutation increases the sensitivity of the ebg repressor
to lactose, and permits sufficient ebg enzyme activity for growth. The result-
ing fully evolved ebg operon regulates its own expression, and also regulates
the synthesis of the lactose permease.

No one planned any of those mutations, which were unlike any other before. They evolved from different molecules and then a regulator evolved which no one anticipated. No point in denying the fact.

Yes Hall did he manipulate the environment to produce the desired mutation. Remember, I taught you this concept already mutations can be directional. Hall proved that to be true even if he did not know that he was proving directional mutation to be true.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #345]

It is not the mathematics of cosmology it is the mathematics of quantum mechanics that cosmology has to follow.

How's your progress on a theory of quantum gravity? Maybe cosmology does follow the mathematics of quantum mechanics, but so far no one has reconciled gravity as described by general relativity with quantum mechanics, so I think the jury is still out on your claim above.

Really atoms are in a super positional state until they are observed or measured for Difflugia. No one is comfortable with this fact. And some physicists believe that quantum mechanics is incomplete but that has not been shown to be the case.

Again, quantum gravity is not sorted out, so either quantum mechanics is incomplete, or general relativity is incomplete (as we already know ... singularities are a problem), or some new physics is needed to explain things. There is still no "theory of everything" in physics (maybe in religion where the explanation is easy, but not in physics).

Especially in the latest research which shows that interaction with matter does not break the wave function. And I imagine that it is especially disturbing to a materialist because that would mean that every new observation that man makes is breaking the wave function of the particles but that is not what we seem to observe. Hence the crazy theories we see in cosmology.

I was at a restaurant for lunch yesterday and at the table next to mine all they were talking about was how their observation that the spring rolls were cold was breaking the wavefunction of the rolls. They were pretty concerned about this, but ate them anyway. Seriously, what materialist worries about whether observations are breaking a wavefunction or not? The idea that nature has purely naturalistic explanations without the need for gods or similar beings is very simple and does not require expertise in quantum mechanics, or cosmology.

And this is why reality as we understand it cannot exist with out a creator God.

If "this" (every new observation that man makes is breaking the wave function of the particles) is why "reality as we understand it cannot exist without a creator God", then clearly we don't understand it yet. You're just substituting a creator god as an explanation for things science has yet to figure out ... same old god-of-the-gaps argument.

[The Barbarian]

Hall asks the question and then answers in the affirmative. Quote-mining usually trims off meaning, as it did this time. Notice that Hall also indicates the mutations were selected as a model for evolutionary change after they occurred. I don't think you read this very carefully. And it's not just Hall's opinion. For example, the "nylon bug" evolved the same way...[/quote]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #343]Hall said:

• He deliberately selected the mutations in the laboratory.

After they occurred. The bacteria evolved them, and the ones that were adaptive evolved a new enzyme system plus a regulator. Hall selected that as an example.

He selected them as a model for a biochemical pathway that MIGHT evolve.

And the "nylon bug" mutations confirmed his prediction. The bacteria in that case did the same thing in nature, outside of a lab. Hall had it right.

He said it was a reasonable question to ask whether this model might have any relationship to the real world OUTSIDE the LABORATORY.

And he then affirms that his idea was correct. As you now know, the nylon bacteria evolved a new enzyme system the same way, but in nature, not in the lab.

Conclusion this was a laboratory experiment like I said it was.

Which was also confirmed by the evolution of a new enzyme system to utilize nylon. So Hall was correct in affirming his rhetorical question. Would you like me to show you again that he did so?

Your nylon bug has no bearing on Hall's experiment and what he did and said.

You seem to think that since the nylon enzyme evolved in nature, it's somehow essentially different than an enzyme system that evolves while people are watching. But it's not. Both are cases of the evolution of a new adaptive trait.

Whether this happens in nature is not my argument.

It was probably a mistake for you to make that argument, then.

My argument is with how long this "evolution" took. If it took a year then that would be around 2000 generations for 3 mutations

There were an entire series of mutations.

The which means that it would take the 40 million mutation events between man and chimp. 530 billion years that is my argument.

Well, let's look at that. Each of us has about 100 mutations present in neither parent. Say a population of 1,000,000 individuals gives us 100,000,000 mutations per generation. So 40,000,000 doesn't look that daunting, does it? Suppose humans and chimps diverged from their common ancestor 3 million years ago. Let's suppose a generation is 20 years. About 15,000,000,000,000 mutations, then. If even one mutation in every 375,000 ended up fixed in the population, that would do it. And as you probably know, fixation happens more readily than that, even by chance. Try again?

To be sure, Dr. Wise thinks that there must be a reasonable explanation for (the anatomical, genetic, and fossil evidence for diversification in whales) in a creationist context. He just can't find one. And the entire assemblage of diversified cetacean fossils is more evidence that Haldane was correct when he assumed that his initial findings would have to be revised to fit reality.

It is fine if he does but has nothing to do with my argument and Haldane's dilemma.

It merely shows that the evidence, as Haldane suspected, shows that his "dilemma" was logically flawed. Reality you know.

You have yet to cite an example that does not prove that Haldane's dilemma is still a valid argument.

As you seem to now realize, even your examples show that Haldane was right to suspect that there was something wrong with his assumptions.

In fact, all of your examples have disproved Haldane's dilemma. Let's look at another of your assumptions:

Including your whale example in which there would have to be around 80 million mutations events so according to Haldane's dilemma is it would take over 200 billion years.

Let's see. Supposing we do that with whales. Let's say 50 mutations per individual (about half the human rate) and a milliion whales. They mature a bit faster than humans. The long outlier in most estimates is about 15 years. So 50 million mutations a generation. And the first identifiable whales evolved about 50 million years ago. So we have about 11 billion mutations. If roughly one in 140,000 mutations became fixed,it would account for the differences.

(claim that phylogenetics is not useful)

That's a testable belief. We can,for example consider how many times phylogenetics predicted transitional forms later found to exist. In my lifetime in science those include fish to tetrapods, anapsids to turtles, stem amphibians to frogs, forest apes to humans, wasps to ants, cockroaches to termites, dinosaurs to birds, ... very long list. So it's been a very productive and efficient process. All those predicted forms eventually confirmed phylogenetics.

Not in the case of the whale it does not work.

As your fellow creationist, Dr. Wise admits,it does. Yes, whales were predicted to have evolved from ungulates, based on genetic and anatomical data. Not surprisingly, paleontologists later found the predicted transitional forms, as Dr. Wise notes.

And usually, these phylogenetics studies produce connections that could not exist. Like for example the dino to bird example:

You missed something important. Let's take a look...

One of the biggest dilemmas for those who want to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds is that the so-called feathered dinosaurs found thus far are dated to be about 20 million years more recent than Archaeopteryx. This is a problem for evolution because Archaeopteryx is now generally recognized to be a true bird. P.J. Currie et al., eds., Feathered Dragons: Studies on the Transition from Dinosaurs to Birds, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 2004. https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... nto-birds/

Your guy is wrong. Archaeopteryx is not a bird. Indeed, it has more theropod dinosaur traits than Avian ones. It's very close to the line that gave rise to birds,but it's not a true bird. Would you like me to show you the details?

That's not the only error, though. Your guy assumed evolution is a ladder in which an old species must go extinct if it produces another species. This is sometimes referred to as the "if you are alive, your uncle has to be dead" fallacy. We have termites, but we still have roaches, from which the termites evolved. We still have artiodactyls, from which cetaceans evolved. This is just a major misunderstanding about the way evolution works. Old taxa commonly live on long after they give rise to new taxa. This is commonplace in evolution.

Sorry, that's wrong. As you realized when you corrected your math, an artiodactyl ungulate (hippotomus) is as closely related genetically to whales as we are to chimps. Which confirms the fossil record of early whale transitionals, as well as the anatomical data (such as ungulate digestive systems in whales).

We are 8% different than chimps that is fine with me. But being the same as human and chimpys still does not help your counterargument. it would still take to long.

See above. Your math doesn't work there, either.

EVOLUTION OF A REGULATED OPERON
IN THE LABORATORY
BARRY G. HALL
Microbiology Section, U-44, University of Connecticut, Storm, CT. 06268
Manuscript received November 6, 1981
Revised copy accepted April 12, 1982
ABSTRACT
The evolution of new metabolic functions is being studied in the labora-
tory using the EBG system of E . coli as a model system. I t is demonstrated
that the evolution of lactose utilization by ZucZ deletion strains requires a
series of structural and regulatory gene mutations. Two structural gene mu-
tations act to increase the activity of ebg enzyme toward lactose, and to
permit ebg enzyme to convert lactose into allolactose, an inducer of the lac
operon. A regulatory mutation increases the sensitivity of the ebg repressor
to lactose, and permits sufficient ebg enzyme activity for growth. The result-
ing fully evolved ebg operon regulates its own expression, and also regulates
the synthesis of the lactose permease.

No one planned any of those mutations, which were unlike any other before. They evolved from different molecules and then a regulator evolved which no one anticipated. No point in denying the fact.

Yes Hall did he manipulate the environment to produce the desired mutation.

No. He manipulated the environment to favor a particular phenotype. How that phenotype would evolve, he had no idea until he checked to see what the bacteria had done. This is another point that creationists often miss. Human populations living at very high altitudes would be expected to evolve an adaptation to living with low oxygen content of the air. And they do. But the mutations for this are not the same in all such populations. Tibetans evolved a very different mutation than the people living in the high Andes mountains. You (and many other creationists) have confused phenotype with mutations. Which is one reason this is hard for you to work through.

Remember, I taught you this concept already mutations can be directional.

As I showed you, this is because you confused phenotype (adaptation to a particular environmental condition) with mutation (a specfic change in genotype). If you think about this for a moment, I'm sure you would see why phenotypic changes are often predictable, even if specific mutations are not.

[The Barbarian]

If "this" (every new observation that man makes is breaking the wave function of the particles) is why "reality as we understand it cannot exist without a creator God", then clearly we don't understand it yet. You're just substituting a creator god as an explanation for things science has yet to figure out ... same old god-of-the-gaps argument.

This is the problem I have with it. You are probably familiar with the "Shroedinger's Cat" thought experiment. A cat is in a covered box. In the box is a device that will release poison gas if a specific quanta of radiation is released from a radioactive source in the box. (which is irreducibly random; there is only a discrete probability of that happening) The punchline is that the cat is neither dead nor alive until Shroedinger looks in the box. And here's the problem:

The cat is sitting in the box, observing the mechanism which being observed and happening not to release a quanta of energy, collapsed that wave function. Now, there is a discrete probability that Shroedinger (outside the box and therefore not observed by the cat) will have a heart attack and die. But Shroedinger is neither dead nor alive until the cat pushes open the lid and takes a look. The wave function will then collapse and Shroedinger will be either dead or alive.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #350]

You are probably familiar with the "Shroedinger's Cat" thought experiment.

Oh yes ... first exposed to that one in graduate school back in the early 1980s. I look at this as just another interpretation of everything being a probability in quantum mechanics, and the wavefunction for a system describes the probabilities for various outcomes (of all possible outcomes). Collapse of the wavefunction upon observation is just a way of describing the event that produced a given outcome, as it resolved multiple probabilities into a single outcome.

I have a hard time extrapolating this to macroscopic things like trees or cats or people that as macroscopic systems do not behave at all like quantum systems in a superposition of states. They may be composed of trillions of individual quantum elements like atoms and their constituents that do behave as quantum elements subject to the laws of quantum mechanics, but when combined into a macroscopic system the characteristics of that system do not follow quantum probability arguments.