Why the Bible is wrong, according to the Bible

[Hanni]

Originally Posted by kirant

Genetic mutations are crapshoots. Not all mutations are good and that's what you're saying.

Though in a seperate realm from evolution, the theory of natural selection helps explain why the negative traits are removed and why, in hindsight, it may look like a linear pattern and that, for some reason today, there is a disconnect in the amount of positive traits being existent. It's just that all the negative traits are more likely to be removed by being easier to eat/harder to live, so the mutation strain gets removed pretty quickly. However, it's more likely that the better strains survive (though this can be removed sometimes by natural disasters), so these "improvement" pass their genes on more.

The other issue here is we have at best a few thousand years worth of biological observation to go on. Probably only a few hundred years of anything even remotely reliable. We see a lot of mutations that are harmful because at this point we are able to observe them properly. In nature harmful mutations make an organism weak, they die before they are able to pass these mutations on further. Beneficial mutations are clearly few and far between, which is why evolution is such a slow process, but they do happen. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by kirant

Genetic mutations are crapshoots. Not all mutations are good and that's what you're saying.

Though in a seperate realm from evolution, the theory of natural selection helps explain why the negative traits are removed and why, in hindsight, it may look like a linear pattern and that, for some reason today, there is a disconnect in the amount of positive traits being existent. It's just that all the negative traits are more likely to be removed by being easier to eat/harder to live, so the mutation strain gets removed pretty quickly. However, it's more likely that the better strains survive (though this can be removed sometimes by natural disasters), so these "improvement" pass their genes on more.

EDIT - Revising post to Flabbibulin's edit.
- I think it's all just part of luck and chance. If [x] doesn't provide a better chance of survival, it's just luck that [x] strain instead of [y] strain survived (ie eye colour).

Sorry for the late revision, but I didn't want it to seem like I was suggesting that 100% of mutations are negative-

but, I am one for pointing out some of the flaws/unanswered questions in evolutionary biology, which include-

1/ the rarity of beneficial mutations
2/ the lack of fossil evidence of said mutations and their linear path to a new organism
3/ the usefulness of half an organ as it evolves into a complete form.

[Hanni]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Sorry for the late revision, but I didn't want it to seem like I was suggesting that 100% of mutations are negative-

but, I am one for pointing out some of the flaws/unanswered questions in evolutionary biology, which include-

1/ the rarity of beneficial mutations
2/ the lack of fossil evidence of said mutations and their linear path to a new organism
3/ the usefulness of half an organ as it evolves into a complete form.

I agree, but I don't think anyone would argue that evolutionary science is perfect. But that is the point of science to develop and test theories, always searching for the answer, not just saying God did it and giving up.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by AC

A simple answer would be, if a mutation is neutral or beneficial, how can we observe it?

On a genetic level, mutations are nearly undetectable unless they are deleterious, in which case they are usually fatal.

Mutations are not going to take place which cause any substantial and easily observable benefit. For example, say somebody had a mutation within their genes related to the development of alveoli in their lungs, and as a result had a greater capacity for taking oxygen into the blood stream.

The by product of such a mutation would be that the individual has a better ability to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide in their lungs. The only way to become aware of such a mutation, would be to look at their genetic coding. Meaning that realistically, this mutation would remain unknown.

Simply put, most observable mutations are deleterious because they are observable.

Which is exactly what I was taught in uni- our expectation of a mutation is that it should be "large" and observable, which is flawed.

Sorry, my questions are somewhat loaded and perhaps I am just trying to have fun by reciting creationist jargon.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

Is it theism or Theism? Or is it communism or Communism? Is it atheism or Atheism? Seriously, it makes a big difference.

Who cares? Seriously, it makes no difference at all. You're being seduced by Platonism and the idea that ideas are Ideas.

Dude, as long as we're throwing around how intelligent people are, I'll refrain from my usual habit of self-deprecation to assure you that I am far from stupid and I can understand any complex idea you might care to explain INTELLIGIBLY. If you can't get across what you mean without waving your hands and invoking semantics, that doesn't mean your ideas are beyond me or anyone else, it means you are terrible at explaining them, which further confirms you don't have any deep understanding of what they are and how they fit together.

You have no access to secret knowledge beyond the ken. The sooner you realize this and stop playing magician to the credulous, the better.

Originally Posted by peter12

What we have now is the rehashing of 200 year old ideas, mainly liberal utilitarianism, by far less intelligent and eloquent people. It's embarrassing and shrill.

Originally Posted by peter12

Anyway, I am making a point about philosophical or personal self-awareness which is far more important than whether you believe in God or not.

How does the first statement, which is the one I refuted, have any relation at all to the second statement, which is where you try to move the goalposts?

You aren't making any point about self-awareness in statement one. You are making a claim that your so-called "new atheists", in which class I'm certain you include everyone who discusses this with you here, are (poorly) reusing arguments from 200 years ago. When I specifically show you that this isn't true, you go off on a completely unrelated tangent as if I can't go back and quote what you originally said to show that you are not being intellectually honest.

Flat denial of the facts is not an argument. Putting people in a category to which you apply ad hominem attacks is not an argument. Appeal to authority is not an argument. Non sequitors are not arguments. For someone who thinks of himself as a philosopher, your egregious and continual reliance upon such obvious fallacies is both annoying and tiring.

You claim to believe in self-examination; do some of it. Ask yourself a question: is it more likely that you're the absolute intellectual superior of everyone on this board, or is it more likely you only think you are?

[Circa89]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Sorry for the late revision, but I didn't want it to seem like I was suggesting that 100% of mutations are negative-

but, I am one for pointing out some of the flaws/unanswered questions in evolutionary biology, which include-

1/ the rarity of beneficial mutations
2/ the lack of fossil evidence of said mutations and their linear path to a new organism
3/ the usefulness of half an organ as it evolves into a complete form.

I do not know if you are bat e insane or not? Perhaps you are a dog owner?
Let me put it this way. in 100 plus years we have "evolved" a wolf into a chihuahua, or a Wiener dog or a poodle..
Have you any concept what 550 million years of random chance might accomplish? 550 million years....

[Hanni]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Which is exactly what I was taught in uni- our expectation of a mutation is that it should be "large" and observable, which is flawed.

Sorry, my questions are somewhat loaded and perhaps I am just trying to have fun by reciting creationist jargon.

I do not know if you are bat e insane or not? Perhaps you are a dog owner?
Let me put it this way. in 100 plus years we have "evolved" a wolf into a chihuahua, or a Wiener dog or a poodle..
Have you any concept what 550 million years of random chance might accomplish? 550 million years....

Just for clarification on Flabbibulin's behalf, he's playing devils advocate.

[Flabbibulin]

nm

[Circa89]

You have no access to secret knowledge beyond the ken. The sooner you realize this and stop playing magician to the credulous, the better.


Whoa, Peter 12 sounds like a Mason to me. Just saying.... How can you claim a Mason does not have secret knowledge???? Of course he does !! he is a free mason from YALE who was a member of the the skull and bones just saying...


You did go Yale right Peter 12???

[Flabbibulin]

Do I really need to write such things with green text?

[Circa89]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Do I really need to write such things with green text?

NO you are free and clear of any rhetorical implications from Mr. JC> he does not condone your half assed attitude

[T@T]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Yes I understand that, but what formed the heart and brain? did evolution just create a man and woman and tell them to make babies?


This is for high IQ TAT:


How did the human body form? not how did it evolve. The actual physical flesh and the organs. Who or what created the human body?

You talk like the human body is something special when infact it's very simple when compared to other creatures (past and present) on this planet, some cephalopod species like many of the octopus can use up to 300 times the brain power of a human just to camouflage themselves from predators yet their brain is the size of a wallnut, the Chondrichthyes (stingrays,sharks..etc) have survived hundreds of millions of years on this planet when countless of other beings died out from planetary problems and disasters.

As for us powerful humans who need god to keep us going...pffff, tell that to the many homo sapien subspecies that didn't make it. If god made the earth why did he wait 4.5 billion years to put us here? were the dinosaurs just a 500 million year old test to check out planetary oxygen levels?

And if you need to ask who, what or how the human body came to be?...sorry bud you need help that I really don't have the patience for.

But maybe there's a website called evolution-101.com or something.

.

[Flabbibulin]

nm

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Sorry for the late revision, but I didn't want it to seem like I was suggesting that 100% of mutations are negative-

but, I am one for pointing out some of the flaws/unanswered questions in evolutionary biology, which include-

1/ the rarity of beneficial mutations
2/ the lack of fossil evidence of said mutations and their linear path to a new organism
3/ the usefulness of half an organ as it evolves into a complete form.

As for #1, I think people really overvalue the frequency of any mutation and the amount that it impacts a species. Frequency wise, these evolutions take part over millions of years or, assuming a lifespan of about 20 years, or hundreds of thousands of generations. For example (and this is from memory, I might be wrong), it took about 15 million years for the last distinguishable species of horse to evolve to the modern day horse, which is about 500 000 lifetimes of evolution. There isn't much difference between the two animals, which describes the rate at which mutations turn into species changes.

In addition, almost any mutation, short of being completely groundbreaking in a single generation, will only impact the chances of survival minutely. If you happen to get a new strain of eyes which let you see a little better, you might be able to see the predator slightly sooner than the rest of your herd.

2 is something I've talked to my paleontologist friend about before. Fossils are fairly hard to collect and a generally incomplete. It's pretty lucky if they get a few bones in the right spot, and completely amazing if they get a full skeleton of something or two skeletons depicting a story. While they are the best evidence for evolution, I think that it's impossible to say that they provide a great look at the past.

3 is a tough question for current theories to answer. I agree that the current models don't answer all the questions. That's where work is being done today though, right?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Who or what created opabinia? you do realize that some religions believe in evolution too right?

Outside of Jainism, Druids, Wicca and perhaps a few Christian spin offs can you quickly name 15 that believe in evolution?
There are ~34,000 separate Christian religious groups, 270 large religious groups and each one of them think they are God's messenger.
There are over 3700 supernatural beings cataloged on the planet of which 2870 are termed deities. The Hindu world could have many many more themselves.
Who should we believe?
Which God is the right one?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

I work with one of the kindest, honest and good people you'd ever meet - but he honestly believes without a shadow of a doubt that Noah built an ark with two of each animal and that all life originated from God creating Adam and Eve. Seeing his faith ripped apart by two atheist co-workers for no other reason to flex their intellectual muscles was absolutely depressing.

If a good Christian upbringing made this man the way he is what right do these guys have to try and rip down the foundation his morals/ethics are built on? They might as well be going door to door handing out leaflets.

I'm not sure that has much to do with anything. There's certainly no shortage of jerk Christians in the world.

Being unable to defend one's beliefs isn't the fault of others.

[Gozer]

If rational debate were a snowball fight, Peter12 would be the guy standing on an iceberg yelling "You guys have no idea how big my snowball actually is!"

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

I'm not sure that has much to do with anything. There's certainly no shortage of jerk Christians in the world.

Being unable to defend one's beliefs isn't the fault of others.

No but being a c**t for no other reason other than to belittle someone is.

My agreement with Peter is that Atheists are becoming much to high and mighty with which are ultimately their own beliefs.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

No but being a c**t for no other reason other than to belittle someone is.

My agreement with Peter is that Atheists are becoming much to high and mighty with which are ultimately their own beliefs.

It's not against the law to be a c**t.

Please provide examples of outright discrimination.

As for atheists becoming "too" high and mighty, what particular stratum should they occupy?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

One, I do agree that atheism is frowned upon more often than not- not even an option in certain parts of the Islamic and Catholic world. Indoctrination in children is an awful way to increase the religious population... yet studies would suggest it is essentially the sole reason Islam is growing.

Even in Canada and the US there's lots of incidents of discrimination against atheists, I know many who are in the closet because the repercussions of coming out to their families or friends would basically devastate their lives.

The #1 indicator of what religion anyone will be is geography, so yeah it is kinda like indoctrination, though there's varying degrees. Telling my kid what I believe and him likely believing the same is just the way it goes.. making sure my kid believes the same and disciplined or disowned, not so good.

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Second, if the intention of said graphs is to discredit biblical realists, then fire away. That is not to suggest that I don't think the Bible has an incredible amount of historical value.

Me either, a good amount of our current culture has roots in the Bible and religion, not understanding either makes it much harder to understand our culture.

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

While my education might suggest that I would be inclined to discredit religion any chance I get, I have found it wise to simply separate the two. Literal creationists, while entertaining, do not bother me.

At least until they try to change the education system with falsehoods to fit their own goals, then it bothers me. But yeah if someone wants to believe the earth is flat, go for it. Just don't be surprised if people think its silly.

Originally Posted by puckluck

I find it actually humorous (mmm humous) that atheists are usually the most radical with their beliefs.

Really? Do you have a specific example?

Originally Posted by puckluck

Yes I understand that, but what formed the heart and brain? did evolution just create a man and woman and tell them to make babies?

The heart and the brain evolved over time. They evolved quite early, which is why most species share those features. Sexual reproduction as well evolved quite early.

Originally Posted by puckluck

How did the human body form? not how did it evolve. The actual physical flesh and the organs. Who or what created the human body?

The question of how did the body form and how did it evolve are the same questions. The layout of the body of mammals evolved from fish, all mammals share a common ancestor. Tiktaalik is representative.

Originally Posted by puckluck

Nope you're understanding it perfect, but if something gets created from another specie then how was the very first specie created.

The first species evolved from its ancestors. Are you asking how life got started in the first place? That isn't evolution, evolution assumes there's a lifeform to start with. How life got started is called abiogenesis.

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

To play devil's advocate, then explain why essentially all genetic mutations observed in the modern world are harmful to an organism, and almost never give an advantage over its competitors??

edit: sorry, some mutations are neutral and do not give an organism an advantage or disadvantage... some mutations are in fact beneficial- extremely rare though

I'll start with a question, do you know how many mutations there are between you and your parents?

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

1/ the rarity of beneficial mutations

They're rare, but when you factor in the time scales involved as well as the # of generations and the size of the population, the rate of beneficial mutations are sufficient to explain the diversity of life.

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

2/ the lack of fossil evidence of said mutations and their linear path to a new organism

I don't think there's a lack of fossil evidence at all.. there's lots of very good lines with good representation over time.. equine evolution and whale evolution being two. There are lots of great fossils.

More would be nice, but fossilization is a rare event, we're fortunate to have what we do.

And incidentally with the understanding of genetics, evolution would be the correct conclusion even if we didn't have a single fossil.

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

3/ the usefulness of half an organ as it evolves into a complete form.

Of course half an organ would be useful. A patch of light sensitive cells could be useful. Some cells that produce an enzyme that is useful to the organism even though incomplete. Things also get reprovisioned, so an organ that used to do one thing changes to do something else. There's lots of research around this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli...ion_experiment
This is a good experiment showing a completely new ability evolving as a result of multiple mutations, one mutation building on a previous mutation to create a pathway to metabolise citrate.

Usefulness isn't the measurement, fitness is.

But basically this boils down to an argument from incredulity. "I can't think of how this organ is useful if it isn't complete, therefore it can't have evolved", which is a logical fallacy.