Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
40.png
Metis1:
Not necessarily as all scientific dates include + or -, and these vary with several factors.
Click to expand...
In your view what is more accurate?

Carbon dating for articles under 50,000 ya or the rock dating methods commonly used?
Click to expand...
It depends on how much C14 is present in the sample, and how secure the sample was from contamination. If C14 dates are near the extreme end of its useful range, C14 is much less accurate than if it is somewhere in the middle of its range. Remember, C14 dating relies on taking a logarithm of the C14 concentration and converting it to a time. Logarithms of extremely small numbers are extremely imprecise.
 

On the efficiency of the genetic code after frameshift mutations​

Statistical and biochemical studies of the standard genetic code (SGC) have found evidence that the impact of mistranslations is minimized in a way that erroneous codes are either synonymous or code for an amino acid with similar polarity as the originally coded amino acid. It could be quantified that the SGC is optimized to protect this specific chemical property as good as possible. In recent work, it has been speculated that the multilevel optimization of the genetic code stands in the wider context of overlapping codes. This work tries to follow the systematic approach on mistranslations and to extend those analyses to the general effect of frameshift mutations on the polarity conservation of amino acids. We generated one million random codes and compared their average polarity change over all triplets and the whole set of possible frameshift mutations. While the natural code—just as for the point mutations—appears to be competitively robust against frameshift mutations as well, we found that both optimizations appear to be independent of each other. For both, better codes can be found, but it becomes significantly more difficult to find candidates that optimize all of these features—just like the SGC does. We conclude that the SGC is not only very efficient in minimizing the consequences of mistranslations, but rather optimized in amino acid polarity conservation for all three effects of code alteration, namely translational errors, point and frameshift mutations. In other words, our result demonstrates that the SGC appears to be much more than just “one in a million”.

For all three deleterious mechanisms, the genetic code shows clear evidence of its capability to minimize their effects by conserving the polarity of the coded amino acids. The results show that the SGC is most efficient in minimizing the effect of translational errors. It outperforms more than 99.99% of one million randomly generated codes. This effect even got stronger for the combination of all three proposed measures, indicating that all three factors might have been contributed independently to the evolution of this sophisticated, robust, and universal coding. … Thus, our principal conclusion is that stability against frameshift mutations should be put on to the list of the series of features the SGC achieved in the course of evolution.

peerj.com

On the efficiency of the genetic code after frameshift mutations

Statistical and biochemical studies of the standard genetic code (SGC) have found evidence that the impact of mistranslations is minimized in a way that erroneous codes are either synonymous or code for an amino acid with similar polarity as the originally coded amino acid. It could be...
peerj.com peerj.com
 
I like puns…
Ok so the first thing we need to look at is the rocks, and how we measure time in them, here I have to stop before I even start as I know of no way of measuring time in rocks, so just how do we know the age of a rock?
OR are we talking assumption again?
What about those Little mysteries so described by an evolutionist when asked about Uranium halos, we may find out in the future he said why they are present but for now they are little mysteries, the scientist Professor Gentry believe they are proof of an instantaneous assembly of Granite bed rock and apart from a few lame attempts to discredit him as is the way of evolutionists, you can’t prove him wrong and the only reason he was discredited was because he went against the accepted model of billions of years, so you see many keep their heads down in fear of ridicule and loosing their jobs and titles, just like Gentry did and many others.
To move on
What about the sedimentary layers of millions of years ?
We can observe test and replicate strata movement and it moves sideways like a wave on a beach the bottom is the same as the top therefor deposits no matter their depths are the same age on top as the bottom, hence we have trees going through several strata’s.
So you can not use rocks scientifically to date anything other than what has been observed and no one has seen rocks form other than sedimentary rock and that takes weeks to look identical to sediment we are told is millions of years old.

Organic matter in fossils , well that is a big problem for evolutionists is it not?
but wait whats happening today we see articles state scientists have found what LOOKS LIKE blood cells that May be like blood cells you see how it works they use slight of hand and now we have below another fella telling me they did not find red blood cells so I assume in another few years it will all be swept under the rug and the lie will go on as is the way of evolutionists.
so getting to the real question again how do we know the age of rock without assumption?
 
I see where your going with this I smell another cover up of truth to preserve the lie of evolution.
And seriously? your telling me to stay away from creationist websites because of their obvious agenda, like really? Evolutionists have no agenda? how about the many frauds they have committed in the past?
I would say evolution is based on nothing but fraud and bias agenda.


or how about
 
sevenswords said:
Ok so the first thing we need to look at is the rocks, and how we measure time in them, here I have to stop before I even start as I know of no way of measuring time in rocks, so just how do we know the age of a rock?
Click to expand...
Excellent. The first step in learning something new is knowing what you do not know. For the dating of rocks see Wiens’ Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective. That will tell you how rocks are dated.
What about those Little mysteries so described by an evolutionist when asked about Uranium halos, we may find out in the future he said why they are present but for now they are little mysteries, the scientist Professor Gentry believe they are proof of an instantaneous assembly of Granite bed rock and apart from a few lame attempts to discredit him as is the way of evolutionists, you can’t prove him wrong and the only reason he was discredited was because he went against the accepted model of billions of years, so you see many keep their heads down in fear of ridicule and loosing their jobs and titles, just like Gentry did and many others.
Click to expand...
Gentry was talking about Polonium halos, not Uranium. There is a good scientific explanation for them. One of the elements in the decay chain between Uranium and Polonium is Radon. Radon is a gas, and a gas can travel along small cracks in rock. When the Radon decays it may have moved some distance along a crack, causing a Polonium halo away from the original Uranium deposit. See Polonium Halos Refuted for more details.

rossum
 
sevenswords said:
I see where your going with this I smell another cover up of truth to preserve the lie of evolution.
And seriously? your telling me to stay away from creationist websites because of their obvious agenda, like really?
Click to expand...
If you are just looking for confirmation of your existing belief, regardless of the truth, then sure, go ahead and immerse yourself in creationist websites. But as has been demonstrated here, they disseminate untruths.
 
Last edited:
Carbon dating needs to be adjusted, typically using tree rings because levels of carbon absorbed can vary from year to year. Also, it cannot be used on aquatic animals because less C-14 is available under the water.

With rocks, much depends on what’s actually being dated and its degree of accuracy., and sometimes both techniques are used in conjunction with one another. Since the composition of rocks is highly variable, sometimes a rock may be dated through radioactive potassium, for example, but some cannot because they don’t contain any potassium. Also, radioactive potassium is used with much higher dates and, therefore, much less accurate with more recent dates, and in many cases cannot be used at all.

In anthropology, we don’t date objects since that’s beyond our area of expertise, so specimens are shipped out to labs that specialize in this area.
 
sevenswords said:
I see where your going with this I smell another cover up of truth to preserve the lie of evolution.
Click to expand...
Actually it’s the other way around. “Creationist” sources typically come in with an agenda, and the unfortunate reality is that so many of their propaganda are willing to lie in order to suck people in. OTOH, if one comes in with an agenda within science, they’ll typically get shot down during peer review that must provide evidence that the agenda is wrong. Hearsay and innuendos simply don’t make it in science-- especially today.

But let’s use common sense here, namely that one thing we observe over and over again is that all material objects tend to change over time, and this includes genes and also non-organic material. That’s “evolution”.

Also, just a reminder that the ToE is neutral when it comes to theistic creation.
 
Metis1 said:
40.png
Aloysium:
God created us perfect
Click to expand...
Tell that to parent of a child who is born brain dead as the paradigm you are using really doesn’t make sense. Instead, let me recommend a paradigm shift that may make more sense, namely that God created all but voluntarily left some elements to chance so that it becomes our world, not just His.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you either don’t know what you are talking about or have succumbed to the bitterness of those who refuse to accept the cross that through God’s grace, we have bestowed upon us. Within the segment of the population that you are addressing, in many cases hidden from view because it speaks to our mortality, there is much joy and love. Most Christian parents faced with such heart wrenching challenges, seeing their kids as God knows them, in love, understand that they will encounter them in the eternity of the resurrection as they are - whole. I would suggest reviewing the Church’s teachings on the fall and suffering, contemplating your issues with God in prayer.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
It sounds like you either don’t know what you are talking about or have succumbed to the bitterness of those who refuse to accept the cross that through God’s grace, we have bestowed upon us.
Click to expand...
Is that why I taught theology for over 30 years, including Catholic theology for 14 years?

I have no such “bitterness”, so maybe your response is simply one of “projection”? But what I can’t help but notice is that you took my point based on a question you really didn’t answer and you turned it into an ad hominem attack in order to demean me and what I posted.

By chance are you aware of Catholic moral teachings on intentionally demeaning others? Maybe look it up…
 
Metis1 said:
40.png
Aloysium:
It sounds like you either don’t know what you are talking about or have succumbed to the bitterness of those who refuse to accept the cross that through God’s grace, we have bestowed upon us.
Click to expand...
Is that why I taught theology for over 30 years, including Catholic theology for 14 years?

I have no such “bitterness”, so maybe your response is simply one of “projection”? But what I can’t help but notice is that you took my point based on a question you really didn’t answer and you turned it into an ad hominem attack in order to demean me and what I posted.

By chance are you aware of Catholic moral teachings on intentionally demeaning others? Maybe look it up…
Click to expand...
This being the internet, who knows to whom it is one is speaking. That said, I don’t actually doubt you taught theology.

Projection’s a really interesting thing; most people are unaware of how it forms their understanding of others.

I wasn’t trying to demean you. I was concerned about your attitude towards the human condition. Your post suggested you had issues with how God does things. It seemed to be implied by your observation that our mortality and suffering is some haphazard random event, the result of an intended ommision by God, rather than the direct consequence of original sin. I would add that the Beatiitudes turn the world upside-down, but that’s a huge other discussion.
Metis1 said:
Tell that to parent of a child who is born brain dead as the paradigm you are using really doesn’t make sense. Instead, let me recommend a paradigm shift that may make more sense, namely that God created all but voluntarily left some elements to chance so that it becomes our world, not just His.
Click to expand...
By the way, what was your question exactly. I will be glad to give you my take on it.
 
Last edited:
I read this a while back what do you think? A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years? there have been other similar tests done showing the ages to be way off using different methods, so what am I to believe tests done on known ages that have proven wrong or presumptions of constant decay.
I did say Gentry had a few dodgy attempts at challenging his findings this is one, but i don’t hold to it.
 
I believe what I believe is the truth and have no reason on earth to think it is not, I have seen many frauds used by evolutionists and have spent 20 years on and off as a lay man looking at various items of interest and I have not been remotely convinced by evolution I think it is a ridiculous theory and it has no place in modern science given it has failed to present any kind of evidence needed to convince right minded people. I mean you can tell me until your blue in the face that all life sprang from non living matter and fish crawled out of the sea and evolved into millions of highly complex species and you will not convince me of this lunacy.
Or is it a case of science is what the majority say it is and any other science is religious dogma?
My religion teaches that one man and one woman is the cause of all human beings and that is sound science as nothing other than man and woman come from man and woman and no science can show otherwise your faith is based on assumptions many many assumptions that don’t match science that is sound testable observable and repeatable non of which can be claimed by evolutionists. So sorry I will continue believing that this highly complex human life form was made by a loving God in his image and without sin, it’s just common sense really.
 
sevenswords said:
I read this a while back what do you think? A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years? there have been other similar tests done showing the ages to be way off using different methods, so what am I to believe tests done on known ages that have proven wrong or presumptions of constant decay.
Click to expand...
More YEC lying. ICR deliberately picked xenocrysts, much older than the eruption, to date, and used an inappropriate method for recent rocks. See Young-Earth Creationist ‘Dating’ of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals.

There is no scientific support for YEC dates, so all they have for support is lies, which they rely on the lack of scientific knowledge in their target audience to get away with.

ICR deliberately fixed the results to get the outcome they wanted. They are bearing false witness.

rossum
 
sevenswords said:
I believe what I believe is the truth and have no reason on earth to think it is not…
Click to expand...
That is an unscientific starting point. Scientific theories must always be open to being shown to be false. Any scientist who said what you just said should find another job.
I have seen many frauds used by evolutionists…
Click to expand...
Many more frauds by creationists. Of course you would not know that if you assiduously avoid any source that challenges your view.
and have spent 20 years on and off as a lay man…
Click to expand...
And I’ve spent triple that many years doing the same thing. So what?
I mean you can tell me until your blue in the face that all life sprang from non living matter…
Click to expand...
That’s a mistake right there - confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They are independent theories. This thread is only about evolution, even though many people here have been talking about abiogenesis. In fact, abiogenesis has much less supporting evidence than evolution, which has a ton of evidence. It is unfair to try to tear down evolution by criticizing abiogenesis.
you will not convince me of this lunacy.
Click to expand...
Calling something that the majority of educated people accept as lunacy is not a very convincing argument. Are they all lunatics? All except you and a handful of creationists?
Or is it a case of science is what the majority say it is and any other science is religious dogma?
Click to expand...
What the majority says may not be proof, but it is highly suggestive. And we are not talking about a tiny majority, but about 97% today. One common sense principle we should all agree on is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. And claiming that 97% of the scientific community is dead wrong qualifies as an extraordinary claim. Evolution is also an extraordinary claim, but it does have extraordinary proofs.
My religion teaches that one man and one woman is the cause of all human beings…
Click to expand...
That’s interesting. My religion teaches the same thing! Unfortunately for your point, that does not contradict evolution.
…many many assumptions that don’t match science that is sound testable observable and repeatable non of which can be claimed by evolutionists.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, evolutionists do claim sound, testable, and observable supports for the theory.
So sorry I will continue believing that this highly complex human life form was made by a loving God in his image and without sin…
Click to expand...
I will continue to believe that too.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Calling something that the majority of educated people accept as lunacy is not a very convincing argument. Are they all lunatics? All except you and a handful of creationists?
Click to expand...
At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.
I think it would be about 50-50
 
buffalo said:
40.png
rossum:
You also need to realise that recent dinosaurs do not destroy evolution.
Click to expand...
If it is proven a dinosaur died say 25,000 ya found in rocks that we dated at 65mya, then the rocks are not that old.
Click to expand...
Not logically correct. What we can say is that one of those dates is wrong. Did you use your Exo-Matic Super Boulder and Dino Dating Machine on either of them?

I wasn’t aware of any relatively young dinosaurs appearing in ancient rocks in any case. Who told you that?
 
Bradskii said:
I wasn’t aware of any relatively young dinosaurs appearing in ancient rocks in any case. Who told you that?
Click to expand...
He may be thinking of Mark Armitage’s misidentified “Triceratops” horn, which is actually a bison horn and carbon dated about 33,000 ybp. Strangely enough the YEC sources do not make a great deal of that date, which destroys the YEC timeline. That is not an unusual date for a bison horn.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top