Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[Askthepizzaguy]

stop avoiding the subject. this was about scientist not be allowed to voiced their opinion about darwian evolution.

I don't even give a flying fig if he wasn't allowed to, even if the story is true.

It still does not provide ANY.... EVIDENCE..... FOR..... CREATIONISM.

Would you PLEASE respond to MY posts? I've done you the courtesy of responding to yours. I'm getting tired of you ignoring me when I show you the respect it takes to look at your evidence and provide counter-examples and refutations.

• If you cannot be bothered to respond to all my points, then stop claiming like you've won a debate or (laughably) that I am the one ignoring YOU.

 

[magicfan101]

Oh that's easy: YES THEY DO.

• Now, you have to demonstrate WHY they don't work that way.

I grow weary of pointing this out, too.


"I'm sorry that you're wrong" = NOT A REBUTTAL.

saying yes it does does not make it true. i provided ample explanation on the limits and dangers of mutations. if mutations are not dangerous why is it advised to wear sun block at the beach..

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It will be at least 24 hours before I can respond further, a simple matter such as a daughters wedding now intrudes.

Dude!

Congratulations!

 

[Brian Shanahan]

your argument it is give it a billion years and anything can happen. im sorry but mutations dont work that way

Please tell me how, as everything I've ever read, heard or seen with an actual scientific bent has said that that is basically the biggest ingredient in Evolution, Deep Time. Given enough time the combination of genentic mutations and natural selection (coupled with the odd catastrophic event) almost anything can occour, with just one proviso that the new organism is better equipped to survive in the currrent conditions than the one which preceeded it in the evolutionary chain. It's that simple.

clearly you are avoiding the truth. jerry bergman puts a solid case of discrimination against anyone who critiques Darwin.

Where? If this is true I'd like to see it. But I'm guessing that it's going to be more like the Expelled! No Intelligence Allowed "documentary", where the story of people alleged to be sacked due to their ID views (never proven by the way) was used by the film-maker to (very unsuccessfully) discredit evolution by using soundbites (often without prior permission) from leading evolutionists. Frankly the best you can do is "random creationist is right, all evolutionists are bigots. I say so as well therefore it must be true."

This is not the way to win an arguement in science. You have to furnish data which supports your arguement, detail how you got such data and if you are using experimental data, supply every step of every experiment carried out by you, so that we can ensure that the expirement and any data resulting from it is replicable.

To date you've done none of this.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

saying yes it does does not make it true.

!!!!!!!!!!

your argument it is give it a billion years and anything can happen. im sorry but mutations dont work that way

Saying it does not work that way does not make it true.

That's MY point, thank you for finally getting it! It's sad when I have to use your OWN arguments to refute your own arguments. Get some consistency, PLEASE.

i provided ample explanation on the limits and dangers of mutations. if mutations are not dangerous why is it advised to wear sun block at the beach..

1. You provided ZERO examples of the limits of mutation.

2. Do you understand the difference between "some" and "all"?

if mutations are not dangerous why is it advised to wear sun block at the beach..

If some mutations are not dangerous, but some are dangerous, then exposing oneself to levels of radiation which can cause harmful "and sometimes helpful" mutations, but the helpful ones won't matter because you're dead, that's NOT the same thing as a single random mutation over the course of a generation.

A bad mutation will cause that specimen not to thrive. But not all mutations are bad. The vast, vast minority of them are.

If you introduce a million mutations in a specimen, it might die, yes, because some of those might be bad.

If you introduce one or two mutations, it will probably be just fine.

The good mutations survive.

The bad mutations don't thrive.

• Is this really that hard a concept?

 

[magicfan101]

I don't even give a flying fig if he wasn't allowed to, even if the story is true.

so freedom of speech is not allowed. scientist should be prosecuted and attacked for just offering critiques of Darwinian evolution

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Dude!

Congratulations!

Ziggy I think you're congratulating the wrong person. But as their arguements are interchangable and equally as stupid I think it's fairly understandable.

@Magicfan101 why are you avoiding all my rebuttals to you? Is it because deep down you know you're beaten and that creationism is a fallacy, but you are not man enough to admit it?

so freedom of speech is not allowed. scientist should be prosecuted and attacked for just offering critiques of Darwinian evolution

Final absolute proof that you do not read other's posts. What ATPG said was that the story was irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with either disproving evolution or proving creationism. We are not here to discuss alleged discrimination against one person we are here to see if you and other creationists can furnish any proof for creationism. If you want to discuss the alleged discrimination I suggest you set up a thread to do so (with the appropriate evidence of course).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

so freedom of speech is not allowed.

freedom of speech is not the topic.

Ziggy I think you're congratulating the wrong person.

So many quotes saved, so little time. Thanks!

 

[carlosMM]

so freedom of speech is not allowed. scientist should be prosecuted and attacked for just offering critiques of Darwinian evolution

that's not what he said - and this is about your 50th strawman in this thread.

 

[Arakhor]

stop avoiding the subject. this was about scientist not be allowed to voiced their opinion about darwian evolution.

I have absolutely no idea what you're rambling on about. Darwinian evolution has always been a controversial subject, especially amongst scientists. Unlike creationism, science is not proscriptive and, unlike creationism, it is generally verifiable.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

The quote here does not attempt to answer what was used for cellular energy prior to ATP synthase, although it does recognize its role in all kingdoms of life. Until answers are given to the energy needs of cells prior to ATP synthase, then all explanations fall flat.
It will be at least 24 hours before I can respond further, a simple matter such as a daughters wedding now intrudes.

The quote is not intended to be a direct answer to your question, it's written as an encyclopedia entry about the origins of ATP.

The point is, scientists can show there is a process by which simpler mechanisms come together to create the process of generating ATP, using simpler molecules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate

ATP is also the molecule which facilitates the transfer of energy, it is not itself the energy necessary for the cell. From what I understand, it simply accelerates the process of cellular respiration, which could happen on its own naturally, albeit much more slowly, without ATP, in more primitive stages of the formation of life.

Obviously, the mechanism which functions as an accelerant for cellular function will be selected for over a life form without such a useful function.

Like the cellular membrane and the lipid layers which can form through abiogenesis, the more simplistic lipid layers were functional, but not superior to modern phospholipid bi-layers which are much more complex and intricate than a simple fat layer.

The cell may have used the simple fat layer for many generations until through a mutation generated proteins or amino acids or enzymes or other molecules which enhanced the membrane or changed its structure chemically.

All of these processes can be or already have been explained through science.

Some of this is, admittedly, over my head, as I am just a first-year college student with little interest in this field. But just because I cannot provide all explanations does not mean they do not exist.

My explanations are still infinitely superior to "It must be impossible unless God did it".

all explanations fall flat.

Including "God did it?"

 

[magicfan101]

If some mutations are not dangerous, but some are dangerous, then exposing oneself to levels of radiation which can cause harmful "and sometimes helpful" mutations, but the helpful ones won't matter because you're dead, that's NOT the same thing as a single random mutation over the course of a generation.

A bad mutation will cause that specimen not to thrive. But not all mutations are bad. The vast, vast minority of them are.

If you introduce a million mutations in a specimen, it might die, yes, because some of those might be bad.

If you introduce one or two mutations, it will probably be just fine.

The good mutations survive.

The bad mutations don't thrive.

• Is this really that hard a concept?

you clearly missed the evidence in my first post.
natural selection can not remove all bad mutations in a population. they will slowly build up. the mutation is only naturally selected if it is expressed.

but only when these mutants come to visible (phenotypic) expression. Most mutations “hide” as recessives

all "good" mutations cause a reduction of functionality in the genome

 

[Arakhor]

all "good" mutations cause a reduction of functionality in the genome

Citation needed!!

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

you clearly missed the evidence in my first post.
natural selection can not remove all bad mutations in a population.

• What makes a mutation bad in the first place?

they will slowly build up. the mutation is only naturally selected if it is expressed.

"Slowly build up?" If they cause no harm in the first place, the mutation is neutral, not bad.

Secondly, not every member of a species will have this "bad" mutation. Only a portion of the population will. others will have different mutations.

Example: Mutations in a population (simplified)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

One year, the mutation "7" will be proven to be bad, and all the 7s are wiped out.

However, the mutation "6" will thrive. Until the next disaster, in which "8" will thrive and "6" becomes less common. However, not all bad events wipe out all instances of these mutations.

They are not "slowly building up" until every animal specimen of that species has a catastrophic failure due to too much mutation. The bad genes will be selected out.

Meanwhile, new numbers form, due to.... mutation. Look, replacements!

if they are not, a species goes extinct due to a natural event like a plague, a famine, or simply being unable to mate and thrive without over-predation.

It has happened before, but other species fill in the gaps and evolve and adapt and there is still life, just different life.

all "good" mutations cause a reduction of functionality in the genome

No, they don't. You have to show evidence, reasoning, etc for such an absurd assertion, and you've failed to do so.

Not for "all good mutations" and not for "reduction of functionality in the genome".

You've offered selective examples of a change being somewhat beneficial, somewhat harmful. But that doesn't apply to all, and it doesn't show that everyone in that genome is affected.


Basically, your entire argument is hogwash, in so many words. It's baseless and riddled with holes.

Now, KINDLY respond to MY posts for a change.

 

[magicfan101]

Final absolute proof that you do not read other's posts. What ATPG said was that the story was irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with either disproving evolution or proving creationism. We are not here to discuss alleged discrimination against one person we are here to see if you and other creationists can furnish any proof for creationism. If you want to discuss the alleged discrimination I suggest you set up a thread to do so (with the appropriate evidence of course).

every time i post evidence for creation. you guys say its not from peer reviewed journals. Im showing you that the people doing the peer review are biased against any evidence for evolution even when it has solid scientific basis. someone else mentioned that everywhere he goes he is told evolution proven . im trying to show based on real hard evidence that there is extreme bias for any one that challenges darwian evolution. that is why creation or ID scientists are not allowed to publish in peer reviewed articles even though there field of research does not deal with orgins.

 

[sanabas]

And of course, a lot of selection isn't driven by actual mutations, but simply by natural variation in a particular characteristic. Which may or may not be news to the anti-evolutionists we've got posting. I suggest googling 'directional selection'.

 

[Arakhor]

every time i post evidence for creation. you guys say its not from peer reviewed journals. Im showing you that the people doing the peer review are biased against any evidence for evolution even when it has solid scientific basis. someone else mentioned that everywhere he goes he is told evolution proven . im trying to show based on real hard evidence that there is extreme bias for any one that challenges darwian evolution. that is why creation or ID scientists are not allowed to publish in peer reviewed articles even though there field of research does not deal with orgins.

So you're saying that someone who writes an accurate scientific article can't get published, even it passes the peer review process, simply because they don't believe in Darwin as if he was the second coming of Christ? You know that famous phrase - citation needed?

Yup, that's right: citation needed.

 

[El_Machinae]

natural selection can not remove all bad mutations in a population.

Hopefully I can make a statement that will eventually lead to an 'aha!' insight.
A changing environment changes which mutations are 'bad' mutations. Given any genetic load, different environments will select for different preferential arrangement of a population's collective genetic diversity.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Hopefully I can make a statement that will eventually lead to an 'aha!' insight.
A changing environment changes which mutations are 'bad' mutations. Given any genetic load, different environments will select for different preferential arrangement of a population's collective genetic diversity.

Yes, I meant to say this but it got lost in the bubbling soup of this discussion. Good post.



I will ask for help here from anyone who can answer the ATP origin/what did cells do before ATP question better than I can. I gave my best response but it is outside of my personal knowledge and I was not satisfied with my own response.

I am pretty sure we know more about the origin of ATP than I can recall or find through a google that is weighted toward christian creationist websites on this subject.

Any experts on this one?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

stop avoiding the subject. this was about scientist not be allowed to voiced their opinion about darwian evolution.

Opinions don't matter in science. Only facts.