Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

  • Thread starter Thread starter NSmith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Buzzard3 said:
A nuclear fusion reactor cannot arise from chaotic matter without an intelligent designer and creator pulling the strings.
Click to expand...
I literally just got done explaining exactly how that can happen.
 
Last edited:
I appear to have messed up - I meant to say God is capable of using evolution.
 
Buzzard3 said:
40.png
Freddy:
So you do have an explanation. And it’s the same as Eric’s. It’s creationism
Click to expand...
God created the first living organism and God created every creature that came after it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Anytime you have the evidence for creationism, let us know. You’ve spent all your posts being negative. Now’s the chance for something positive.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
I literally just got done explaining exactly how that can happen.
Click to expand...
Don’t insult my intelligence by telling me a nuclear fusion reactor could arise naturally from chaotic matter. Without God’s (name removed by moderator)ut and power, no stars would exist at all.

Have you put your explanation to the test? Which experiment did you perform that demonstrates a nuclear fusion reactor arising naturally from chaotic matter?
 
Buzzard3 said:
Which experiment did you perform that demonstrates a nuclear fusion reactor arising naturally from chaotic matter?
Click to expand...
We looked at the sky. Stars are forming around us every single day in nebulae like the Orion Nebula. This is firmly established astronomy. The fact that you dismiss it so flippantly betrays your true attitude towards science.

Point to the part of my explanation that breaks down. Where is the step that’s impossible without God?
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
Fair enough. Anytime you have the evidence for creationism, let us know. You’ve spent all your posts being negative. Now’s the chance for something positive
Click to expand...
As I’ve mentioned already in this thread, the Cambrian explosion is evidence of creation, as are all those other gaps in the fossil record.
 
Last edited:
Buzzard3 said:
It makes sense theoretically that a beneficial mutation increases an organism’s chance of survival, but I don’t see how you can put a figure on it.

For example, you could closely observe two tadpoles surviving out of an original population of 200 tadpoles, but I don’t think you could determine which of them died/survived as result of pure luck or a beneficial mutation.
Click to expand...
You do not work with individual tadpoles, you work with populations of tadpoles. Evolution happens in populations. Individuals reproduce, or not. Populations evolve. If you are looking at evolution you need to look at populations.

The process is rather like compound interest. As an example, take a population of 1000 organisms; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. For comparison I include ten other mutated organisms with a deleterious mutation, giving a 1% disadvantage. Start with a population of 10 deleterious, 989 neutral (or unmutated) and 1 beneficial mutations. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:
Code: 
Generation  Deleterious   Neutral   Beneficial
----------  -----------   ------    ----------
     0         10.0       989.00          1.00
     1          9.9       989.00          1.01
    10          9.0       989.00          1.10
   100          3.7       989.00          2.70
   500          0.1       989.00        144.77
   700          0.0       989.00       1059.16
  1000          0.0       989.00      20959.16
That is why beneficial mutations are more common overall. They are rare initially, but they are amplified and spread by natural selection. You can also see that the deleterious mutations are eliminated and do not spread, despite being more common initially.
 
Buzzard3 said:
40.png
Freddy:
Fair enough. Anytime you have the evidence for creationism, let us know. You’ve spent all your posts being negative. Now’s the chance for something positive
Click to expand...
As I’ve mentioned already in this thread, the Cambrian explosion is evidence of creation, as are all those other gaps in the fossil record.
Click to expand...
No, they are not. They are just used by you to deny evolution. You have no evidence. Literally zero. Versus the gargantuan amount that supports the evolutionary process.

Let me repeat that. There is more evidence for evolution than perhaps any other scientific theory. And you have no scientific evidence at all for your claim.
 
Buzzard3 said:
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman:
I literally just got done explaining exactly how that can happen.
Click to expand...
Which experiment did you perform that demonstrates a nuclear fusion reactor arising naturally from chaotic matter?
Click to expand...
It’s a simple experiment. Walk outside during the day and feel the heat of the sun. You will never guess what causes it…

The chaotic matter is the stellar dust from which the sun formed by gravitational forces (you might have heard of gravity). And far from it being impossible to start fusion in this example, when the internal gravitational forces became large enough then it was impossible to stop fusion.

Want to see more examples? Walk outside during the night instead. There’s lots of them.

Why don’t you know any of this? And probably more to the point, why are we wasting our time trying to explain it to you?
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
That is why beneficial mutations are more common overall. They are rare initially, but they are amplified and spread by natural selection. You can also see that the deleterious mutations are eliminated and do not spread, despite being more common initially.
Click to expand...
But that is not what is actually happening.
 
Freddy said:
I’ve given up trying to explain evolution to you.
Click to expand...
More progress. Thinking the old explanations are more valid than the latest findings is absurd.

No need to explain your faith in the god of BUC. I know it well.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
There is more evidence for evolution than perhaps any other scientific theory. And you have no scientific evidence at all for your claim.
Click to expand...
There is no empirical evidence, that is observable. repeatable and predictable. Lots of story telling though.

The latest findings on super complexity is being conveniently ignored.
 
rossum said:
The process is rather like compound interest. As an example, take a population of 1000 organisms; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. For comparison I include ten other mutated organisms with a deleterious mutation, giving a 1% disadvantage. Start with a population of 10 deleterious, 989 neutral (or unmutated) and 1 beneficial mutations. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:
Click to expand...
This analysis has an unrealistic assumption, i.e., a constant environment for 1000 generations. Environmental changes drive natural selection. What was beneficial 1000 generations ago may certainly become detrimental in subsequent climate changes.

What is known of the environment suggests a cyclic rather than linear pattern. While the number of variables that affect climate change are numerous, we refer to all of them as cycles. As such, the primary driver of natural selection – environment --, it seems to me, cannot explain the progress in living forms from the simple to the complex that we observe. Evolution would be ordered to the same pattern as its primary driver, the environment, and be cyclical as well.
 
buffalo said:
But that is not what is actually happening.
Click to expand...
And your evidence for this is? I showed evidence in my post. You have personal opinion and … crickets …

By now you should know what I think about unsupported personal opinion.
 
o_mlly said:
This analysis has an unrealistic assumption, i.e., a constant environment for 1000 generations.
Click to expand...
Bacteria, such as E. coli have a generation time of about 30 or 40 minutes. 500 hours is less than three weeks. Hardly unrealistic.
 
rossum said:
Bacteria, such as E. coli have a generation time of about 30 or 40 minutes. 500 hours is less than three weeks. Hardly unrealistic.
Click to expand...
That’s fine and addresses microevolution in bacteria nicely. However, it is not helpful in explaining bacteria to human being.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top