Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[negZero]

i can not prove the entire human population has genetic disease unless everyone was tested

Get 5000 people and do a genetic test on them if more then 25% have the same genetic disease, you would just prove your argument. Guess what stuff like this has been done no genetic disease affecting sizable part of the human population.

but harmful disease can not be naturally selected out untill they are the expressed gene. which only happens when mother and father have an exact copy of that defect.

Wrong just plain wrong.

so harmful mutations are slowly accumulating in a population

Hundreds of thousands of years of breeding and genetic mapping say your wrong.

(another serious problem for evolution where are you going to find a partner with the exact same "good" mutations so it can be passed on to next generations. especially with mammals since they have so few offspring.)

Ever heard of the math problem which is better million dollars now, or penny going up exponentially? Good mutations penny, bad ones is the corpse in the corner.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

i can not prove the entire human population has genetic disease unless everyone was tested but harmful disease can not be naturally selected out untill they are the expressed gene. which only happens when mother and father have an exact copy of that defect. so harmful mutations are slowly accumulating in a population
(another serious problem for evolution where are you going to find a partner with the exact same "good" mutations so it can be passed on to next generations. especially with mammals since they have so few offspring.)

Easy enough to prove that the whole population is suffering from a genetic disease. If a overwhelmingly large portion of the population is suffering from symptoms of said disease (e.g.above 90%) then it is prevalent through the whole population. You then take a random sampling of the population (50 should suffice) and trace the origins of the disease. If it turns out to be genetic then bingo! you've just found a population wide genetic disease.

And harmful mutations do not accumulate in a population, natural selection processes and sexual reproduction actually see to it that harmful mutations die off quickly. Why else do you think we shifted to sexual reprodcution than the far more safe (and better guarantee of passing on your genes) method of asexual cloning. It was because in cloning there is no method for screening out harmful mutations. With sexual reproduction there are many different copies of half the genetic code of each parent made and the actual winning code is picked on a random basis (the first sperm to the egg which happens to ovulate). This ensures that there is a far greater chance of harmful mutations being discarded. And natural selection will do the rest by process of die offs, lack of future progeny, etc.

Finally I want to ask you a simple question: Can you describe with any accuracy the concept of NATURAL SELECTION? It is the basis of the whole evolutionary position and a topic which you have been studiously avoiding all through the topic. It is the one thing that cosistently and comprehensively defeats every point you make, and it is a FACT! There are three responses you can give here:
1) Ignore my question: That means you are deliberately avoiding discussion about the core arguement for evolution, and it also means that you know your arguement doesn't hold water. If so I think everybody else should put you on the ignore list fortwith, and keep you there.
2) You give a bad answer: That means that you either lack knowledge on the subject or someone else has deliberately mislead you. The thing then is to point you to some proper books and articles on the subject, hope you read them and if you do and still have problems, answer any questions you may have.
3) Come out saying that it has nothing to do with your arguements: This means that you are deliberately discounting evolution as a possible answer witout even looking at the evidence. It also means that you have your mind made up and no evidence to the contrary will change it (and we have mountains of evidence). Following from this, I can only deduce that it is pointless talking to you on any subject, because a closed mind in one area will mean a closed mind in all other areas. This means that you are in the wrong place while posting in the OT forums here, and you would be better off in a place like Conservapedia where your fellow know-nothings will be glad to have you.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Please understand that your pet theory that all mutations are degenerative has no evidence and has already been discussed, and is full of logical holes.

ive provided an entire list of genetic disease caused by mutations that is evidence

Okay, let's try this again.

Please understand that your pet theory that all mutations are degenerative has no evidence and has already been discussed, and is full of logical holes.

ive provided an entire list of genetic disease caused by mutations that is evidence

One more time.

Please understand that your pet theory that all mutations are degenerative has no evidence and has already been discussed, and is full of logical holes.

ive provided an entire list of genetic disease caused by mutations that is evidence

Does anyone else see it?

Please understand that your pet theory that all mutations are degenerative has no evidence and has already been discussed, and is full of logical holes.

ive provided an entire list of genetic disease caused by mutations that is evidence

Look closely.

Please understand that your pet theory that all mutations are degenerative has no evidence and has already been discussed, and is full of logical holes.

ive provided an entire list of genetic disease caused by mutations that is evidence

Look more closely, you'll see it.

Please understand that your pet theory that all mutations are degenerative has no evidence and has already been discussed, and is full of logical holes.

ive provided an entire list of genetic disease caused by mutations

See it now?

that is evidence

all mutations are degenerative

See it? Do you see it?

that is evidence

all mutations are degenerative

that is evidence

Magicfan, do you see any problems with your logic, at all?



"Mutations are slowly building up and we're all going to die!"

*looks around, everyone is just fine*

"Uhhhh..... no?"

"No I am serious. Mutations are bad."

"Some are, most aren't. Mutations allow for differences, some good, some bad, mostly neutral."

"No seriously, mutations are bad and are proof that evolution can't happen!"

"No... mutations are proof that evolution is happening. By your own admission, if species can change so much that they are riddled with crippling diseases, that constitutes a form of (destructive) evolution."

"IT PROVES THAT EVOLUTION IS BOTH FALSE AND BAD!"

"No, it just means that some mutations are harmful, but most are not."

"No I can prove that all mutations are bad, not just some!"

*Posts some harmful mutations*

...................





Why does it hurt so much?



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/some

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/all


For learning.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Demonstrating how random mutation, natural selection, and species diversity leads to vitality, not degeneration.

try randomly shuffling the words on your post. the words change but the meaning and information is now lost.

What does this mean?

mean
meat
peat
seat
seal
real
read
reap
leap
heap
cheap
cheat
heat
heats
eats
hats
pats
pants
pant
pans
cans
cons
cones
coned
toned
tones
hones
phones
phone
phony


By changing information, old information is lost, and new information is gained. Add, remove, or change 1 letter in a sequence and the meaning changes. However, if it is 1 change out of several encyclopedias' worth of information, the overall meaning remains mostly the same. But, if that change made a difference on a macroscopic scale, then that change would impact whether or not the encyclopedia is worth reading.

Example:

"The holocaust was a significant historic development in the 20th century"

could be changed to:

"The hologram was a significant historic development in the 20th century".

The entire meaning changes, yes. Old information was lost, new information is gained.

• If the new information doesn't make sense, no one buys the encyclopedia, and the bad information is flushed down the toilet of history.
• If the information does make sense, or makes MORE sense, then the encyclopedia does well.

Example: "Adolf Hiller was a maniacal dictator" is close to being useful information, and it is preferred over "Adapt Hitman won a diabolical printer". And the change "Adolf Hiller" to "Adolf Hitler" makes even more sense. Thus it would be naturally selected.



Thought experiment:

So imagine we had a program which took words, randomized them, and filled a book with those words. And then, the program automatically generated changes to the book, and selected for changes that made sense, left the ones that didn't make it any more nonsensical, and selected against changes that made things not work. And, parts of the book, although random to start with, made sense, like:

"Remember to floss"

So, although most of the information is garbage, "remember to floss" is at least useful, so it is selected for. When "remember to floss" changes to "remesber to flass", it doesn't make sense, is not useful, and is selected against, because it changed a vital function. Now, a random string of gobbledygook, which isn't helpful or harmful, changes into something useful. This useful thing is selected for, and is kept! It's easy to see how quickly this encyclopedia of random data becomes somewhat intelligible over time.

Now, run this program for 3 billion years, at several changes per year. Allow rival copies of the randomly generated encyclopedia to exist, provided they still function and don't have critical failures, and allow those rival copies to make copies of their own. Eventually, you will get to the point where the encyclopedia says "Adolf Hitler was the dictator of Nazi Germany during world war two". And that version of the encyclopedia will be preferred over "Adept golfer wants the doctor of gnarly Herman during super bowl thirty", because it makes more sense. And the version with the most useful, correct information thrives and thrives, and the version about the golfer which makes no sense is removed from the genome, or at least does not increase in population as rapidly as the more useful sequence. Eventually, entire strings of only marginally useful nonsense will be selected against, and larger, more intelligent strings will be selected for and retained.

Sometimes, entire sections of otherwise intelligent information will be selected against, because it doesn't work. "Color of skin: 00345" gets wiped out because it turns out, that color shows up very brightly against the environment, and predation ruins that sequence of otherwise intelligent information, because it turns out, in that environment, it isn't so intelligent. But suppose all the predators in that area were colorblind? Then it wouldn't matter, and such information wouldn't be harmful.

Conclusion: Environment and functionality determines if a mutation is good, bad, or neutral.... change itself is not bad or a "loss of information" (finally understand this, please!)

Conclusion:

• Changes over time,
• Plus selecting for useful information,
• Plus selecting against losing useful information,
• Plus competition,
• Plus leaving information changes that cause no harm,

Equals good results in the overwhelming majority of cases.


Not degeneration- EVOLUTION.



But, if you take an example of a bad mutation, and only focus on that, and you don't use your brain and think about how common that is, how relevant that is, and how many counter-examples there are, you could be misled into believing that mutation is bad.


If you don't understand some versus all, then you are incapable of reasoning. If you don't understand subtle changes over time, then you can't understand evolution. If you don't understand natural selection, then you can't debate it.

The theories of evolution, abiogenesis, and natural selection, demonstrate how it is not only logical, not only possible, but given the right circumstances and vast amounts of time, it is INEVITABLE that life will develop, change, adapt, and thrive at least somewhere in the universe. Given how massive the universe is (large enough to allow for numbers and probabilities that make life possible through fortunate circumstances) and the nature of physics and the universe itself, it is simply a fact that life will develop here. It is the natural outcome.

And it will get extinguished on some planets, when the sun goes nova or an asteroid hits or some other disaster. That's also inevitable.


Meanwhile, the alternative theory makes much more sense, has lots of evidence, logic connecting that evidence to a conclusion that makes sense, and makes predictions, and talks about things that can be known, demonstrated, proved, or disproved.

Or wait, no, it does none of those things.



More evidence for creationism, less talk about evolution which is not related to creationism and proving or disproving evolution would not prove or disprove creationism.


Is there an echo in here? Because I am dead certain we've covered that before.

 

[magicfan101]

world population---6,889,326,227

Familial combined hyperlipidemia ------ The prevalence of this disease is 1–2% in the general population ~ 137,786,524

Familial hypercholesterolemia------heterozygous FH occurs in approximately 1 per 500 persons worldwide. ~ 13,778,652

Dominant otosclerosis ----Approximately 0.5% of the population will eventually be diagnosed with otosclerosis. Post mortem studies show that as many as 10% of people may have otosclerotic lesions of their temporal bone~ 34,446,631

Polycystic Kidney Disease-----In the United States, about 600,000 people have PKD, and cystic disease is the fourth leading cause of kidney failure. Two major inherited forms of PKD exist

Hereditary multiple exostoses----HME is estimated to occur in 1 in 50,000 people. ~ 137,786

Huntington's disease------The late onset of Huntington's disease means it does not usually affect reproduction.[12] The worldwide prevalence of HD is 5-10 cases per 100,000 persons~ 344,466

that is only 6 genetic diseases. there are over 6000 according to the GOV. natural selection cannot remove them because they remain mostly recessive in the population. some are not seen until later on in life. which prevents natural selection from removing someone who has a harmful mutation from passing it on to his kids. if mutations are the engine of evolution then the first cell would have degenerated. the bad mutations would have overwhelmed any "good" mutations.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-mutations.asp

Natural selection cannot save us from this awful situation either. Selection can and does eliminate or reduce the worst mutations—but only when these mutants come to visible (phenotypic) expression. Most mutations “hide” as recessives, “invisible” to selection, and continue to build up in secret at multiple loci, somewhat like a “genetic cancer” slowly but steadily eating away at genetic quality.

http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Most_mutations_are_harmful

This is a case where Creationists and Evolutionists mean different things by the same terms.

When Creationists speak of the harm, neutrality or benefit of mutations, it is a reference to general harm, neutrality or benefit. Being random, mutations represent a loss of genetic information and they often result in a loss of specialization. Such mutations actually produce an organism that is generally weaker than the non-mutant, but in some cases a mutation happens to allow the mutant to survive an unusual situation because the mutants have lost something the situation targets for destruction.

When Evolutionists speak of the harm, neutrality or benefit of mutations, they refer to specific harm, neutrality or benefit. A claim that some mutations are beneficial, neutral or harmful to an organism is always environment specific. They see no absolute benefit or harm, but see it as relative to a specific environment.

Furthermore Evolutionists see all genetic variation as coming from mutations. They often ignore other sources of genetic variation such as Genetic recombination, Natural Genetic Engineering and Gene transference

 

[negZero]

@Magicfan, do you read anything we post. We never said there aren't genetic diseases, we said that there wasn't a one/single/alone/individual genetic disease that is affecting the general population.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

God designed parasitic wasps because he hates butterflies.

 

[Behind The Mask]

God designed parasitic wasps because he hates butterflies.

God designed children because he hates parents!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

We've already discussed this in this very thread.

I've already discussed this in this very thread. Did you simply not read this thread?

No, he doesn't. He already reposted arguments which he abandoned after he was refuted (giraffe), so every time you refute him, he skips to another topic and tries to ram as many creation.com quotes in there to make it appear there's a wealth of evidence. After you guys painstakingly address each and every one of those, your effort is awarded by another abandonment, and he simply moves to another page of creation.com and copy pastes that.

Pages like this: http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-index

(You might recognize for instance bird evolution.)

Be mindful these sites also give tips on how to argue with evolutionists. And one of the tips was, don't let yourself get bogged down in the details (paraphrased) In other words, don't go beyond gutfeeling or your faith might get hurt.

Shotgun argumentation. Throw as many as them out there, see if you can get a hit, even if it takes dozens of shots.

Your idea to pick one subject, perhaps the one which the creationists think is the best evidence for creation, make a thread especially about that one subject and force the discussion to stay on that one might be a good idea if you have the patience/stamina to do it.

The subject matter here is too broad and gives them too much room to switch, switch and switch until people give up from exhaustion.

 

[carlosMM]

No, he doesn't. He already reposted arguments which he abandoned after he was refuted (giraffe), so every time you refute him, he skips to another topic and tries to ram as many creation.com quotes in there to make it appear there's a wealth of evidence. After you guys painstakingly address each and every one of those, your effort is awarded by another abandonment, and he simply moves to another page of creation.com and copy pastes that.

Pages like this: http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-index

(You might recognize for instance bird evolution.)

Be mindful these sites also give tips on how to argue with evolutionists. And one of the tips was, don't let yourself get bogged down in the details (paraphrased) In other words, don't go beyond gutfeeling or your faith might get hurt.

Shotgun argumentation. Throw as many as them out there, see if you can get a hit, even if it takes dozens of shots.

Your idea to pick one subject, perhaps the one which the creationists think is the best evidence for creation, make a thread especially about that one subject and force the discussion to stay on that one might be a good idea if you have the patience/stamina to do it.

The subject matter here is too broad and gives them too much room to switch, switch and switch until people give up from exhaustion.

the terminus technicus is Gish gallop.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh great. You just had to show I could have condensed my post into 6 words.

Well sir, I will have you know, you are completely right. So there!

(Had never heard of Gish Gallop before. This thread did serve a purpose after all )

Heh, from rational wiki:

Use by creationists

The evolution of living organisms is a large and complex subject, and even professionals cannot study more than a small part of it during their whole careers. Since many debates involve a three quarter hour presentation with a half hour rebuttal, correcting all the Creationist misinformation under these conditions is difficult or impossible. Generally creationists are more than willing to debate when the debating rules favor them in this way.

Since they have no scientific model of their own to present, they will spend all of their time in what is known affectionately as the "Gish Gallop", in which they skip around from topic to topic spewing out an unceasing blizzard of baloney and unsupported assertions about evolutionary theory, leaving the poor evolutionist to attempt to catch up and correct them all.[1]

Where possible it is best to

...narrow the debate down to a single topic--the age of the earth, or the fossil record--and then debate it through to its logical conclusion. This defeats the Gish Gallop, and also prevents the common creationist tactic of suddenly changing the subject whenever he or she gets uncomfortable.[1]

It is also important to challenge creationists whenever they make unsupported claims.

Spot on.

again

 

[magicfan101]

Oh great. You just had to show I could have condensed my post into 6 words.

Well sir, I will have you know, you are completely right. So there!

(Had never heard of Gish Gallop before. This thread did serve a purpose after all )

Heh, from rational wiki:
Spot on.

again

random mutations + natural selection + deep time= the supposed debunking of all creation evidence. so every-time someone brings up random mutations as a way to explain away my evidence for a designer. i will offer a counter arguments against mutations. giraffes do not simultaneously grow parts through mutations. it would have been crippled with all the bad mutations and the same giraffe would have had to meet a partner with the same exact mutations in order for it to continue through the population.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not sure why you quoted my post and then post something completely irrelevant to it.

Giraffes do not simultaneously grow parts through mutations.

You see that? That is a statement. Furthermore, it's an absolute statement. Even furthermore, it's an unfounded absolute statement. Things that are unfounded fall over rather easily.

And claiming "it would have been crippled with all the bad mutations and the same giraffe would have had to meet a partner with the same exact mutations in order for it to continue on." when it's wrong, wrongety wrong doesn't help either.

Question: Do you have your mother's or your father's nose?

 

[carlosMM]

random mutations + natural selection + deep time= the supposed debunking of all creation evidence. so every-time someone brings up random mutations as a way to explain away my evidence for a designer. i will offer a counter arguments against mutations. giraffes do not simultaneously grow parts through mutations. it would have been crippled with all the bad mutations and the same giraffe would have had to meet a partner with the same exact mutations in order for it to continue through the population.

let me summarize that for you:

- god hates grammar
- god hates punctations
- you don't know anything about evolution, but instead of educating yourself you prefer to repeat false statments

 

[Seon]

Not sure why you quoted my post and then post something completely irrelevant to it.

Giraffes do not simultaneously grow parts through mutations.

You see that? That is a statement. Furthermore, it's an absolute statement. Even furthermore, it's an unfounded absolute statement. Things that are unfounded fall over rather easily.

Now, I'm sure you remember my rebuttal all those pages ago? What did it say?

Don't remember the details, but it was a nice theory on how giraffes may have evolved their long long neck.

 

[sophie]

i will offer a counter arguments against mutations. giraffes do not simultaneously grow parts through mutations. it would have been crippled with all the bad mutations and the same giraffe would have had to meet a partner with the same exact mutations in order for it to continue through the population.

Giraffes? Again? Really?!?! We did those like 15 pages ago man! If you're going to make blatantly wrong statements, can you at least not come back to ones we've already clearly shown to be false?

Don't remember the details, but it was a nice theory on how giraffes may have evolved their long long neck.

Here's how it happened. Giraffes were short-necked, and they saw some tasty tasty fruit hanging from a tree out of reach. So they tried, and concentrated like real hard dude, and then BAM long necks bro. And that's definitely without a doubt how it happened.

 

[stuge]

it would have been crippled with all the bad mutations and the same giraffe would have had to meet a partner with the same exact mutations in order for it to continue through the population.

I suggest learning some more about how genetics work before trying to debate this topic any further.

Here's how it happened. Giraffes were short-necked, and they saw some tasty tasty fruit hanging from a tree out of reach. So they tried, and concentrated like real hard dude, and then BAM long necks bro. And that's definitely without a doubt how it happened.

I've been trying this for years (albeit with a diiferent part of the body) but I got nothing to show for it. God must favor giraffes over men.

 

[sophie]

I've been trying this for years (albeit with a diiferent part of the body) but I got nothing to show for it. God must favor giraffes over men.

You probably aren't concentrating hard enough. Just last night I grew 6 feet while thinking about how awesome it would be to be like 11 feet tall.

 

[stuge]

But can you shrink at will, mutant?

 

[Seon]

So you were like, 5 ft tall before?