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.
How is there reality without God?
Moderator: Moderators
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #391[Replying to Jose Fly in post #390]
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.
I hope that helps!!
E
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.
I was not insulting I was giving constructive feed back. Notice I said what you did and then gave an example.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.
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.
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.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.
I hope that helps!!
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.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.
E
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."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!
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.
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.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.
If that is true then they approximate creation as reality not the fairytale of evolution.Second, these equations and models are attempts to approximate reality, not dictate it.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6652 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #392Where 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.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:23 pm 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.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #393Of for goodness sakes. You really need to stop.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 4:08 pm 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.
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're not even making sense any more.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.
LOL...did you not even understand the point?EarthScienceguy wrote: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."Jose Fly wrote: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!
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.
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.
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.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.
That's called "willful ignorance".
Sorry, but your empty say-so is meaningless.If that is true then they approximate creation as reality not the fairytale of evolution.
Last edited by Jose Fly on Fri Feb 10, 2023 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20591
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 337 times
- Contact:
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #394Moderator CommentEarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:23 pm And you do not seem to understand the equation and math in general enough to explain why that is not true.
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
- Savant
- Posts: 20591
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 337 times
- Contact:
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #395Moderator 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
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #396[Replying to Jose Fly in post #0]
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
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
From the article I cited
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
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.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.
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
- Base pairs 3,096,649,726
- 19,827 coding genes
- 25,967 non coding genes
- Base pairs 3,231,170,666
- 23,534 coding genes
- 9,710 non coding genes
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
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.
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
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #397Oh for the love of....
No they don't. I literally said the exact opposite. A1 and A2 are just alleles, that's all.
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?And you are saying that genetic drift is totally neutral. Meaning there is no selective pressure. I can work with that.
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."
Um....what? Where in the world did you get that? I'm starting to think you're just trolling.According to your fairy tale of evolution humans and chimps evolved from gorillas.
Unbelievable.With the Chimp number of coding genes increasing from the number the Gorillas have
Given that your starting point is 100% off base and completely wrong, it renders everything that follows meaningless.
Yes he did. Go read it again.What Ian did not talk about were the non-coding genes.
Your empty say-so doesn't make it so, especially given your unbelievably profound ignorance of the subject matter.Most of the genetic changes in the 16,000 genes would be single-base pair substitutions.
Riiiiiiight, if you have almost no knowledge or understanding of the subject.The numbers simply do not work for Evolution
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.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9407
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 931 times
- Been thanked: 1273 times
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #398I'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!
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #399[Replying to Jose Fly in post #0]
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
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.
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
Yes he did. Go read it again. So how was my starting point incorrect? You forgot that point.
Besides all of that, you said that the numbers do not work and that they do not have to work.
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).Oh for the love of....
No they don't. I literally said the exact opposite. A1 and A2 are just alleles, that's all.
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
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.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."
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.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.
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).
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
Well, that statement is a textbook example of "argumentum ad ignorantiam."Given that your starting point is 100% off base and completely wrong, it renders everything that follows meaningless.
Yes he did. Go read it again. So how was my starting point incorrect? You forgot that point.
Yes that is right another example of "argumentum ad ignorantiam."What Ian did not talk about were the non-coding genes.
Yes he did. Go read it again.
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.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.
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.The numbers simply do not work for Evolution
Riiiiiiight, if you have almost no knowledge or understanding of the subject.
Besides all of that, you said that the numbers do not work and that they do not have to work.
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.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.
- 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....
- 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.
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: How is there reality without God?
Post #400[Replying to Clownboat in post #398]
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.
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.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?
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.