Posts by Vidqun

218

Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This

by cofty in

arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....

Vidqun

Cofty: There is a little thing in every cell of every living thing on earth that is essential to life. It is slightly different in every species but the amazing thing is that the amount by which it is different is identical to what evolution would predict.
It is impossible for this to happen by chance - really, really impossible. Therefore evolution is true.

Is this a paradox or what? Is evolutionism not based on chance? If you really believe what you said here, our views are not so far from each other. I also believe that it is impossible for all of this to happen by chance. Anyway, I do believe the creation model explains the above satisfactorily.

There is no 100% “neutral” mutation. This is a misnomer, one of many. One should excuse the scientists. Not many linguists amongst them. Cf. Crick’s “central dogma of molecular biology.” Similar to Newton’s third law, in the nucleus of a cell every action would be having a reaction. The reaction might be minor or unnoticible. E.g., even then, it would be causing the genome to change and expand. In the end, multiple minor mutations would be detrimental to health of a cell. Since certain codons are less-used than others, the body does not produce as much tRNA for that specific codon. Protein synthesis would be slowed. On the long run, such so-called “neutral” mutations would be influencing the genome negatively. Summary: Even “neutral” mutations, compounded over time, could result in loss of the original specified use of the genetic code.

That brings me to “junk DNA.” There is no “junk DNA.” This is another misnomer. It should be called Noncoding DNA. Splice out all socalled “junk DNA” and the organism dies. Everything in the genome is interconnected. No part should be seen in isolation. Evolutionary scientists should be thanking creation scientist for insisting that every part of the genome has a purpose. The fact that nobody could work out the function of Noncoding DNA, doesn’t mean it has no function. According to ENCODE, they predict that over 80% of the genome is functional.

Stefan Schwarz has compiled the following arguments, of which I concur wholeheartedly.

1. There is no mechanism for evolution - mutations only cause deleterious effects.

Mutations cause cancer, deformities, ageing (in somatic cells) and other deleterious effects.

Even neutral mutations, compounded over time, result in loss of the original specified use of the genetic code.

This points to a more perfect genetic past.

Random mutations are not a mechanism that creates new, usable, specified, complex genetic information. They only add to, subtract from, or replace the original DNA with random changes.

There are many claims that beneficial mutations occur, from nylon digesting bacteria to citrate digesting bacteria. Under closer examination, these so-called mutations are repeatable in laboratory experiments where the same mutation occurs under similar situations....which shows that it is not a mutation, but an ability to adapt under certain environmental pressures. Further, none of the examples invent digestion or anything novel.

2. DNA Copying - chicken and the egg

DNA is copied using complex machines that can copy DNA forward and backwards in segments.

If evolution is true, this method of copying would have evolved.

Yet, evolution cannot occur according to the theory if there is no copying mechanism or no method of reproduction.

Therefore, DNA could not begin to evolve before it supposedly evolved a copying mechanism.

If the mechanism of copying slowly evolved, every generation would have to have at least one fully working copying mechanism for it to evolve, which presupposes that the thing evolving caused itself to evolve which is absurd. Something can not cause itself to exist before it exists!

Some will suggest self replicating pairs of RNA might have gotten the whole process going....and then evolved a programmed molecular machine that could copy DNA and then changed itself into DNA, all in one generation (the machine doesn't work without DNA or all the parts, or the parts of the DNA that have the instructions to create the DNA copying machines, and therefore could not incrementally work).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqESR7E4b_8

Many will say, "but evolution doesn't explain origins!" They are correct, if there is no way to get evolution started. Evolution, at minimum, supposes that the process could start on its own. No matter how much time you wait for something that is impossible to happen, it will be impossible for it to happen.

There are a few other arguments, such as the Cambrian explosion where the sudden appearance of most phyla (and broad genetic diversity) originates, the flawed presumptuous ad hoc dating methods used in geology, the impossibility of the evolution of gender, the logical contradictions inherent in the claims of evolution, the inexplicable commonality of convergent evolution among disparate phyla, and so on.

If someone has put all their faith in evolution, they will most likely reject these arguments. They are then left believing something that is absurd. Either the self-contradictory mechanism of unguided random mutations being intelligently directed or that something can create itself before it exists.

218

Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This

by cofty in

arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....

Vidqun

You are the only "scientist" in the whole universe who is aware of this terrifying idea. Please publish your evidence in a peer-reviewed journal immediately.

Don’t worry Cofty. It has been done. An animal that has a harmful near-neutral mutation will not die out because the mutation is not big enough to be ‘noticeable.’ The animal lives on to reproduce — with its offspring also acquiring that mutation (if it affected the reproductive cells). But now, those offspring not only have the mutation it got from its parents, but 100-300 entirely new near-neutral mutations.1 By stark contrast, the famous geneticist, H.J. Muller, said a rate of only 0.5 mutations per person per generation would doom the human race!2

1. Kondrashov, A.S., “Direct Estimate of Human Per Nucleotide Mutation Rates at 20 Loci Causing Mendelian Diseases,” Human Mutation 21:12-27, 2002; Nachman, M.W., Crowell, S.L., “Estimation of the Mutation Rate Per Nucleotide in Humans,” Genetics156:297-304, 2000; Sanford, John C., Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome (New York: FMS Publications, 2005), third edition, p. 21.

2. Muller. H.J., “Our Load of Mutations,” American Journal of Human Genetics 2: 111-176.

218

Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This

by cofty in

arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....

Vidqun

Any point mutation in the vast non-coding regions of the genome have no effect at all on anything. They are genuinely neutral.

Non-coding DNA does not code for proteins and scientists have previously thought it is largely useless. But this idea is illogical for two reasons.

Reason 1: it is wrong since non-coding DNA helps during embryonic development and can be a part of many diseases.

Reason 2: just because scientists cannot see any function in non-coding DNA (in fact, we now know there is function and effects), that does not mean there is no function!

The idea that non-coding DNA absorbs mutations making them neutral is plausibly false.

218

Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This

by cofty in

arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....

Vidqun

Wizzstick, why do you get so agitated? Is that not what you believe? So what are you going to teach your child? Be kind to your cousins, the apes and monkeys. A childish response to a childish theory, I know. But even if you put in highfiluted, technical language, it still come out as stupid. Let's not give children a bad name. I think most of them are far too intelligent to stomach such ludicrous notions. Fortunately, today they have a choice. They will not be railroaded into believing such gibberish.

Never a jw: Or perhaps you are talking about our current western civilization ethics, which trace their origins to Christianity, but have been vastly improved by secular humanism.

Never a jw, I was worried that you will not get round to it. Yes, the above is what I am referring to. Have you read through the NT? If not, do so. It might be a new experience for you.

DJS, you're right about one thing, luck has nothing to do with it. And no, I'm afraid you don't know me at all and your estimate is all wrong. But believe it or not, that doesn't concern me at all. My favorite saying: Time will tell. Here's my final gift to you. This is what lies ahead. They might appear in our lifetime, they might not, but they will come. It's a promise. Those that will experience them will only have two choices before them. May each and everyone make right choice. If it doesn't happen, the joke's on me, but if it does happen, the joke's on all of you that feel the urge to ridicule:

3 I will empower my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, dressed in sackcloth."

4 These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth.

5 If anyone wants to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and consumes their enemies; if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this way.

6 These men have the power to close the sky so that it does not rain during the days of their prophecy. They also have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with any plague whenever they want.

18 The nations were angry, but Your wrath has come. The time has come for the dead to be judged, and to give the reward to Your servants the prophets, to the saints, and to those who fear Your name, both small and great, and the time has come to destroy those who destroy the earth. (Rev. 11:3-6, 18 CSBO)

218

Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This

by cofty in

arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....

Vidqun

Double post. Slow Internet connection.

81

Elders and Attendants sing, clap and turn backs on Street Preacher after Duluth RC.

by ToesUp in

very strange behavior by the attendants and elders after the duluth, ga, rc.

on the first link the attendants start to exit the arena, then line up and turn their backs on the street preachers.

(around the 6:00 mark).. elders and attendants after duluth rc.

Vidqun

Two possibilities here: Either 1) The elders and MS bravely stage a diversion, while the sisters and children are evacuated safely through the back door. Or 2) It's called "the measuring of the penis." Look, mine is bigger.

218

Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This

by cofty in

arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....

Vidqun

Perhaps, before I answer let's get all the facts straight. Let's look at the context. Why did I offer my credentials? This is why:

Cofty: Vidqun that is the sort of facile argument the Watchtower relies on.
You really haven't read a single science book have you?
What do you know about the origin of some of the organelles inside our complex eukaryotic cells? Have you read anything about endosymbiosis? It is fascinating.
Did you know for example that our mitochondria were originally free-living α-proteobacteria? Did you know they still have their own DNA including active genes? Also some genes that were originally in mitochondria have transferred to the nucleus. The ones that are left in the mitochondria are still there for a good reason to do with cellular respiration. Would you like me to recommend a fascinating book on this topic?

You've asked me (and many others that do not agree with you) if I read any books on science, as though I am an idiot. That's why I offered my credentials. To prove that I have read a few books in my lifetime. But having such credentials doesn't give me a Noddy Badge, does it? Only thing they prove is that I can read and write and that I have studied a few books on the subject. I repeat, my credentials are not important. Perhaps you've got a complex about credentials?

However the neutral mutations of their genes proves their common ancestry with all other living things.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no such thing as a neutral mutation. By its very existence, a nucleotide cannot be neutral. This is because nucleotides take up space, affect spacing between other nucleotide sites, affect regional nucleotide composition, DNA folding and nucleosome building. In fact even if a nucleotide contains no information it is still not neutral as it slows cell replication and wastes energy. This means there is no way to mutate or to change an individual without biological effect. Ultimately the entire population will become extinct because essentially all "neutral" mutations are harmful. And, I am sorry to say, there are no truly neutral mutations that are going to stop this genetic meltdown. The only surprise here is that the human race has not as yet become extinct.

218

Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This

by cofty in

arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....

Vidqun

Thanks, Cantleave, a very enlightening video. I'll try and keep those points in mind.

Cofty: Very few people die cancer before reaching reproductive age, so cancer has little effect on the gene pool. It is mostly a disease of age as mutations accumulate.

I'm glad you add the word "mostly." Recently a close family member developed colon cancer. The hospital that she attended had a whole children's ward full of young cancer patients. So, here I have to disagree with your statement which contradicts the facts.

Cofty: I call it increased morphological complexity.

Well, Cofty, again our species has reached the top of the food chain. We eat everything else. With our morphological complexity and all, I call it "improvement."

Perhaps the most unscientific thing ever written by somebody who claimed to be a retired professional scientist.

Not only is it scientific, it is true. Spider's, horseshoe crabs, the coelecanth, etc. have not changed. Why would their genes have stabilized, while other organisms would be prone to change? It's a mystery. Or is it a mere logical fallacy on my part?

WhatshallIcallmyself, Wallace and Grommit can't be wrong. They were there. It is an established fact.

218

Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This

by cofty in

arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....

Vidqun

Hi there Cantleave, hope you are feeling better. Thanks for the contribution. My credentials are not important. I don't worry about it. So, don't you and Cofty worry about it.

218

Debating With Evolution Deniers is Just Like This

by cofty in

arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....

Vidqun

Cofty, you are so clever. From a one-celled organism to a human being, I call that improvement. What do you call it? The cancer ratio is now 1:4. We'll see whether it goes up. I say it goes up. What say you? Oh yes, you say No.

Let me answer for you. Through natural selection those that die of cancer will take themselves out of the equation. It'll be survival of the fittest. Those that survive will be an improvement of what went before. Their offspring will flourish. So, yes, your model predict improvement.

Let's be specific now. Remember the football analogy? Is the pot not calling the kettle black? Oh yes, and we're back to "claiming to be professional scientist." Really, it's like a stuck record. It's getting boring. How about a variation on the theme?

You know the problem with the evolution theory? It's based on a lie. The DNA of the organism determines the organism: dog DNA > dog, cat DNA > cat, frog DNA > frog, spider DNA > spider. Nothing more, nothing less. The organism has the ability to adapt, but not to change into a new organism. The latter falls squarely in the realms of evolution and Science Fiction.