Two ways to find out how the world around us works:
1. Research natural phenomena, collect evidence, conduct experiments, write papers, exchange theories with others, etc. etc.
2. An invisible superbeing made everything
Why Won't They Carbon Date This?
by Perry 246 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Perry
The point is that Man hasn't realized all the answers yet. We are in our infancy of answering the tough questions.....Even the Big Bang Theory- It's probably not correct.
And then there is the Haldane dilemma, which amounts to an understanding of the time spans which would be needed to spread ANY genetic change through any group of creatures. A very simple version of the thing is all most intelligent people should need:
Imagine a population of 100,000 apes or "proto-humans" ten million years ago which are all genetically alike other than for two with a "beneficial mutation". Imagine also that this population has the human or proto-human generation cycle time of roughly 20 years.
Imagine that the beneficial mutation in question is so good, that all 99,998 other die out immediately (from jealousy), and that the pair with the beneficial mutation has 100,000 kids and thus replenishes the herd.
Imagine that this process goes on like that for ten million years, which is more than anybody claims is involved in "human evolution". The max number of such "beneficial mutations" which could thus be substituted into the herd would be ten million divided by twenty, or 500,000 point mutations which, Walter Remine notes, is about 1/100 of one percent of the human genome, and a miniscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees, or the half of that which separates us from neanderthals.
That basically says that even given a rate of evolutionary development which is fabulously beyond anything which is possible in the real world, starting from apes, in ten million years the best you could possibly hope for would be an ape with a slightly shorter tail.
People who have carried out the math for real-world rates of substitution come up with it taking quadrillions of years for our present living world to have evolved in any fashion even if that were possible, which it isn't.
That of course is nowhere remotely close to the time frames which any sort of an evolutionary scheme of modern man from hominids would require. We are left with three basic choices:
- Modern man was created here from scratch, and recently.
- Modern man was brought here from somewhere else in the cosmos.
- Modern man was genetically re-engineered from one of the hominids, most likely the Neanderthal.
Those are your three basic choices and none of them involve evolution. Moreover the second and third choices merely amount to kicking the can a block or two down the road as far as how anything like modern man ever came into existence anywhere in the universe at all since the the same mathematical and probabilistic laws which prevent macroevolution on this planet would hold true anywhere else. The 17B years which supposedly intervene since the "Big Bang(TM)" wouldn't be enough for modern man to evolve in the universe even if that were possible which it isn't, and even if the Big Bang idea itself weren't just another bunch of BS like evolution, which it is.
-
OnTheWayOut
OTWO: And please please notice what you do here on JWN. You throw in your problem with science and ignore the contributions of others. Instead of dwelling on a matter and really looking at what everyone has to say, you simply switch to your next problem with science. Go back to what people said about your origin question.
Perry: And then there is the Haldane dilemma, which amounts to an understanding of the time spans which would be needed to spread ANY genetic change through any group of creatures.
So you are not actually here to discuss/debate/learn. You are doing something similar to Jehovah's Witnesses; you are looking for an easy way to get your "preaching" in and only looking into what others say enough to jump into your next proof that you are right.
Let's go back to talking about the bird on his shoulder.
-
cantleave
People who have carried out the math for real-world rates of substitution come up with it taking quadrillions of years for our present living world to have evolved in any fashion even if that were possible, which it isn't.
Source please?
-
NomadSoul
I've always thought Perry was a nurse.
-
the-illuminator81
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane1.html
- Haldane's "cost of natural selection" stemmed from an invalid simplifying assumption in his calculations. He divided by a fitness constant in a way that invalidated his assumption of constant population size, and his cost of selection is an artifact of the changed population size. He also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, but because of sexual recombination, the two can be selected simultaneously and both reach fixation sooner. With corrected calculations, the cost disappears (Wallace 1991; Williams n.d.).
Haldane's paper was published in 1957, and Haldane himself said, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision" (Haldane 1957, 523). It is irresponsible not to consider the revision that has occurred in the forty years since his paper was published. - ReMine (1993), who promotes the claim, makes several invalid assumptions. His model is contradicted by the following:
- The vast majority of differences would probably be due to genetic drift, not selection.
- Many genes would have been linked with genes that are selected and thus would have hitchhiked with them to fixation.
- Many mutations, such as those due to unequal crossing over, affect more than one codon.
- Human and ape genes both would be diverging from the common ancestor, doubling the difference.
- ReMine's computer simulation supposedly showing the negative influence of Haldane's dilemma assumed a population size of only six (Musgrave 1999).
- Haldane's "cost of natural selection" stemmed from an invalid simplifying assumption in his calculations. He divided by a fitness constant in a way that invalidated his assumption of constant population size, and his cost of selection is an artifact of the changed population size. He also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, but because of sexual recombination, the two can be selected simultaneously and both reach fixation sooner. With corrected calculations, the cost disappears (Wallace 1991; Williams n.d.).
-
HintOfLime
Where? Trust the internet? His discoveries were published in scientific journals and he claims that it stands unrefuted in those scientific journals here:
Yet you trust the claims you just linked to on the internet.
Hypocrite!
There is good information, backed with real-world references all over the internet. Yes, by all means, check the references, check the data, check who is providing this information - but your rebuttal here is pathetic. Rather than refute my points, your only option is to 'poison the well'. "Well, this is from the internet, which can never be trusted."
Coward! Deceiver!
If there is one thing the history of science has taught us, it is that science is a process, and that it will continue to make discoveries and provide explainations for these things, in time, as we study them. Understanding takes time. Ignorance is instant. Science takes time. Creationism is instant (Goddidit). If something is unknown now, it is an opportunity for science to enhance our understanding. The unknown is not an everlasting, impossible hurdle, and certainly not something science shies awy from or tries to hide.
If there is anything creationists have taught us - it is that they will latch onto whatever is unknown at a given time and pretend it will never be known, and thus must be the work of a magic pixie god. Creationism thrives on ignornace - it has no place in the world of the known, only in the unknown. When science comes to understand a new subject, and can offer an explaination that explains all the facts and fits our understanding of physics, chemistry, etc - then creationists slink away with their tails between their legs and find the next unexplained phenomina to latch onto.
While science grows in it's understanding, creationists constantly lose ground. It is the purpetually losing side - creationists are not making 'great strides' toward proving anything but their own stubborness and ignonorance (notice the root word there: ignore.. the same way you ignore the counter-evidence that has been provided on the previous 12 pages.)
- Lime
-
bohm
as usual, perry is crapfloating random stuff from the net in the name of JESUS.
-
OUTLAW
- Modern man was created here from scratch, and recently.
- Modern man was brought here from somewhere else in the cosmos.
- Modern man was genetically re-engineered from one of the hominids, most likely the Neanderthal.
Those are your three basic choices and none of them involve evolution.....Perry
So..
Those are our choices because..
You say so..
?..
Thats just Effin Stupid..With a Capital Stupid..
LOL!!..
...........................
OUTLAW -
OnTheWayOut
I'm going to do like Perry does- just ignore the previous arguments and present new ones.
If the Bible is right and science is wrong, then this video is a fairly accurate depiction of the logistical/science problems faced by Noah. The last minute or so of part 2 fits into Perry's view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_BzWUuZN5w&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLr5vl-n0Bo&annotation_id=annotation_397131&feature=iv
