Creation beats the shit out of evolution.

[Alpha Beta]

See title.

[RonO]

On 4/16/2017 8:28 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> See title.
>
True, all creation science is doing is beating shit. Your hands must
have that distinctive odor all the time.

Ron Okimoto

[Alpha Beta]

Evolution is as good as dead my friend.

[Alpha Beta]

Evolution is supported by no fact whatsoever. Abiogenesis, genetics and fossil record all refute evolution.

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 9:29:53 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Evolution is supported by no fact whatsoever. Abiogenesis, genetics and fossil record all refute evolution.

Here are 29+ entire LINES of facts that support evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You can keep spouting the same unsupported claims forever, AB... you won't get any less wrong.

[Alpha Beta]

Come on, nobody wants to read a wall of text.
Make short points like me. Like the undisputed fact origin of life is impossible.

[Sean Dillon]

No thank you. I'd rather actually support my arguments with information. The fact that you don't is the reason you're so easy to rebut.

For example, not only is the natural origin of life not impossible, but there are a whole collection of plausible hypotheses to explain it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[Alpha Beta]

Evolution is a joke theory. It's main objection against creation is that genetic copying errors exist that supposedly have created all the different kinds of creatures we see although it was never proven mutations were useful.

[Alpha Beta]

Wikipedia is biased though. Atheists write lots of nonsense there.
See articles like these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

[Sean Dillon]

It isn't about bias, AB. The Abiogenesis article lists out the many Abiogenesis hypotheses currently under consideration. That's why I posted it.

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 11:29:53 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Evolution is a joke theory. It's main objection against creation is that genetic copying errors exist that supposedly have created all the different kinds of creatures we see although it was never proven mutations were useful.

Actually, science's main objection against Special Creation is that there is zero evidence that it occurs.

[Alpha Beta]

And NONE of the evolutionist theories on the origin of life is true. Like evolution itself. If it was obvious evolution has occured people would have doubted creation from the very beginning. But the evidence for creation is stronger than for evolution.

[Alpha Beta]

Creation is true, evolution is not. Creation never had to twist science to make creation true, evolution had to. Like the millions of years fantasy. People found soft tissue in dinosaur bones, and anything that also has Carbon 14 in it can't be that old given the half life time of C14 is just like 5-6 thousand years. Dinosaurs and humans lived together. How else do you explain the culture of many nations like China are based on dragons aka. dinosaurs? How come any year older than 5-10 thousand BC was not documented by any of the thousand cultures in the world? If we were millions of years old we would find many graves, stone weapons and the popluation would have grown significantly in that time.

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 11:44:53 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> And NONE of the evolutionist theories on the origin of life is true. Like evolution itself. If it was obvious evolution has occured people would have doubted creation from the very beginning. But the evidence for creation is stronger than for evolution.

It frequently occurs that the truth is not the most "obvious" answer. People didn't know the world was round for a very long time, because looking around you, it sure seems "obvious" that the world is flat.

"God poofs species into existence" is an easier answer, because it doesn't require any thinking. But that doesn't mean the answer is correct. All of the evidence we have is a better fit to Evolution than to Special Creation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[Alpha Beta]

Yes, and the most dense information storage system DNA can store 455 exabytes of data in 1 gram. How can evolution account for this? It can't.

[Ernest Major]

It's clearly not an undisputed fact. I doubt that even Fred Hoyle would
have claimed that it was indisputable.

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

I found this "wall of text" enlightening:

<http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began>
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Sean Dillon]

The information is dense because it is stored in individual molecules. And the sheer amount of information is the result of many, many additive mutations over a mind-bogglingly long span of time.

Evolution has no trouble explaining it.

[Alpha Beta]

Evolution never happened.

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 16. April 2017 18:39:53 UTC+2 schrieb Sean Dillon:
> > On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 11:29:53 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> > > Evolution is a joke theory. It's main objection against creation is that genetic copying errors exist that supposedly have created all the different kinds of creatures we see although it was never proven mutations were useful.
> >
> > Actually, science's main objection against Special Creation is that there is zero evidence that it occurs.
>
> Creation is true, evolution is not. Creation never had to twist science to make creation true, evolution had to. Like the millions of years fantasy. People found soft tissue in dinosaur bones,

Yes, and it has been well explained:
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

>and anything that also has Carbon 14 in it can't be that old given the half life time of C14 is just like 5-6 thousand years.

Yes, which means that HALF of the C-14 will be gone in 5730 years. And then 5730 years later, only half of THAT will remain, etc. As such, C-14 dating can be used on artifacts FAR older than 6000 years.

Not to mention the fact that there are other, longer-lived isotopes that are also used for dating.

>Dinosaurs and humans lived together. How else do you explain the culture of many nations like China are based on dragons aka. dinosaurs?

Dragons aren't dinosaurs. There was never a dinosaur that looked like a dragon... not the Chinese dragons, not the European dragons. If those humans had actually lived at the same time as dinosaurs, we would expect them to have far more accurate depictions of them. (Not to mention far more varied, since there were LOTS of different species of dinosaurs). We would also expect to find human artifacts carved from dinosaur bone (not fossil), but we don't even find dinosaur bones, let alone carved ones.

>How come any year older than 5-10 thousand BC was not documented by any of the thousand cultures in the world?

Because that is when people developed written communication. And we only had the time and energy to develop written language because of the advent of agriculture, which happened... you guessed it... 5-10 thousand years BCE.

>If we were millions of years old we would find many graves,

No we wouldn't because most graves disintegrate over time.

>stone weapons

We do find stone weapons. But again, most human artifacts will erode to nothing over time.

>and the popluation would have grown significantly in that time.

No it wouldn't, because sizeable population growth only because possible with the advent of agriculture, 5-10 thousand years BCE.

[Bill]

The only evidence that abiogenesis occurred is that life
exists. The main evidence that evolution has occurred is
that life exists in many forms. The only evidence that
Special Creation did not occur is that it's incredible.

Bill

[Ernest Major]

On 16/04/2017 17:17, Alpha Beta wrote:

There are literally billions of observations and mountains of evidence
supporting the factually of common descent with modification through the
agency of natural selection and other processes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/statistics/

http://jgi.doe.gov/glimpse-natures-looking-glass-to-find-the-genetic-code-is-reassigned/


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=white+cliffs+of+dover&num=100&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP8PmSv6nTAhVhI8AKHepbDowQsAQIWA&biw=1920&bih=974

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

On 16/04/2017 18:18, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Evolution never happened.
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8

--
alias Ernest Major

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 12:19:53 PM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Evolution never happened.

You're deeply uninformed opinion has been noted with exactly the weight it deserves.

[Ernest Major]

You need to educate yourself on the main evidence for evolution. The
theory of evolution explains the diversity and disparity of life; that
is not equivalent to the disparity and diversity of life being the main
evidence for evolution - in fact I don't think I've seen it presented as
evidence for the occurrence of evolution before.

>
> Bill
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Alpha Beta]

Evolution means increase in information which has never been confirmed. Nothing supports evolution. Even in the fossil record fully developed creatures pop into the scene.

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 12:44:55 PM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Evolution means increase in information which has never been confirmed.

Sure it has. Every additive mutation is an increase in information. And the occurance of additive mutations have been observed.

>Nothing supports evolution.

Well... aside from these 29+ lines of evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I know you're adverse to doing actual reading. But the information is there.

>Even in the fossil record fully developed creatures pop into the scene.

That's because "partially-formed life" would be too basic to fossilize.

[Ernest Major]

On 16/04/2017 18:44, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Evolution means increase in information which has never been confirmed. Nothing supports evolution. Even in the fossil record fully developed creatures pop into the scene.
>

Your argument is self-contradictory. If no mutations result in an
increase of information then no increase is information is required for
evolution to occur.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Alpha Beta]

Human evolution was proven wrong, Horse evolution was proven wrong, Whale evolution was proven wrong, junk DNA was proven wrong, all missing links of humans and apes were proven wrong, dinosaur evolution has even less evidence because they just suddenly popped into existence according to the fossil record. I don't know about you guys, but the evidence for evolution is really thin.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 09:17:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:

"My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts".

Yeah, we already knew that.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:18:47 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:

>Evolution never happened.

Apparently you subscribe to the Theory of Proof by
Repetition.

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 1:04:53 PM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Human evolution was proven wrong,

No it wasn't.

>Horse evolution was proven wrong,

Also not true.

>Whale evolution was proven wrong,

Wrong again.

>junk DNA was proven wrong,

Nope.

>all missing links of humans and apes wereproven wrong,

Not remotely.

>dinosaur evolution has even less evidence because they just suddenly popped into existence according to the fossil record.

That is manifestly untrue.

>I don't know about you guys, but the evidence for evolution is really thin.

Well... your KNOWLEDGE about evolution is really thin.

[Alpha Beta]

Mutations are bad my friend. Evolutionists line up similar looking creatures where most of them don't even exist and call it proof for evolution. If that's the best proof you have then I am sorry.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Apr 16, Alpha Beta wrote
(in article<a1bcfb71-e3a8-4b35...@googlegroups.com>):

> Mutations are bad my friend.

not all of them.

[Alpha Beta]

Yes it was. None of these has any proof.

[Sean Dillon]

Science doesn't deal in proof. However, there is evidence regarding all of them:

Human evolution:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Equine evolution:
https://www.boundless.com/biology/textbooks/boundless-biology-textbook/evolution-and-the-origin-of-species-18/evidence-of-evolution-129/the-fossil-record-and-the-evolution-of-the-modern-horse-522-13100/

Cetacean evolution:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Junk DNA stil being a thing:
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004351

Fossils linking humans to other primates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

Ancestry of the dinosaurs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/04/12/dinosaur-ancestors-had-crankles-crocodile-ankles-scientists/
(just one example)

Now. I've just provided you with evidence contrary to every claim you made. Want to prove me wrong? You're going to have to do something more than just make wild and unsupported claims.

[Alpha Beta]

Human evolution and missing links were never found, all apemen were proven false, for example Piltdown man and Nebraska man.
Junk DNA doesn't exist. All code we think is useless is what we don't understand yet.
And of course the Internet is full with proof that horse and whale evolution is nonsense.

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 2:44:54 PM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Human evolution and missing links were never found, all apemen were proven false, for example Piltdown man and Nebraska man.

Tell that to the American Museum of Natural History, which has a sizeable collection of human ancestor fossils on display.

> Junk DNA doesn't exist. All code we think is useless is what we don't understand yet.

That's an interesting opinion. But it doesn't reflect the current scientific understanding.

> And of course the Internet is full with proof that horse and whale evolution is nonsense.

Then I welcome you to post links, so we can see just how legitimate your "proof" is.

[RonO]

On 4/16/2017 9:09 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Evolution is as good as dead my friend.
>
Delusion is sort of sad at this point in time.

Ron Okimoto

[Alpha Beta]

Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo floresiensis, are all HUMAN. Not ape-like creatures. Apehumans never existed. Australopithecus however is clearly an ape.

[Alpha Beta]

The facts are not in evolutionist favour. Sorry.

[Alpha Beta]

The bible mentions dinosaurs although it was written 65 million years after the dinosaurs were wiped off. How can we account for this? Oh and bird evolution is a fraud too. They didn't come from dinosaurs.

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 3:14:54 PM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo floresiensis, are all HUMAN. Not ape-like creatures. Apehumans never existed. Australopithecus however is clearly an ape.

So what you're saying is "there is no such thing as ape-humans, because if you show me an ape-human, I'm just going to call it an ape or a human."

And naturally, you left out Homo Habilis, which is about as clear an ape/human blend as one could hope to find.

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 3:44:53 PM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> The bible mentions dinosaurs although it was written 65 million years after the dinosaurs were wiped off. How can we account for this?

We don't have to. There is no reason to assume that the Behemoth was a dinosaur.

>Oh and bird evolution is a fraud too. They didn't come from dinosaurs.

Actually, they really did. And we have a pretty thorough set of fossils bridging the gap between the two:

Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1

We also, at this point, have conclusive evidence that many dinosaurs had feathers, which pretty well seals the deal on this one.

[Alpha Beta]

Dinosaurs ate birds, so they didn't evolve from them.

[Bill Rogers]

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 5:44:56 PM UTC-4, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Dinosaurs ate birds, so they didn't evolve from them.

Well, now I'm convinced.

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 4:44:56 PM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Dinosaurs ate birds, so they didn't evolve from them.

Yeah, that actually just doesn't make a lick of sense.

Birds evolved from one particular branch of the dinosaurian family tree during the Cenozoic. Which means that, yes, more-or-less modern birds existed at the same time as many other dinosaurs (though not the species of birds we see in the world today). And yes, that would mean that birds would have been predated upon by other, carnivorous dinosaurs.

Whether they were eaten by some dinosaurs has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they evolved from other dinosaurs.

Which they absolutely did, as evidenced by the gapless morphological similarity chain I posted earlier:

[RonO]

You really don't understand how lost you are. Creationism on steroids
or hemorrhoids it doesn't matter in your case.

Ron Okimoto

[josephus]

Alpha Beta wrote:
> See title.
>
you have no idea about the practice of science. ANY SCIENCE. I play
with astronomy and orbits. I have written papers. I even found
something new in celestial mechanics. science works this way you,
ME or anyone has a theory or hypothesis. it shows up in the paper.
I send it off to be published and the place asks experts to look
at my paper before it is published. I beat up the data that
the people had and proved my premise. they will correct or approve
my paper. the best way to work is to use the other groups elements.
I did so. but I did something by converting my equation to a general
equation and proved the limits they set. it turns out my
function was much bigger. I wrote a second paper and proved the
orbits around the BLACK HOLE in the CENTER of this GALAXY are not
stable. the publisher asked the group to check and they said they
had already seen the paper.

SCIENCE IS NOT ARBITRARY.

josephus




--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings

[jillery]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:44:13 -0700 (PDT), Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Evolution means increase in information which has never been confirmed. Nothing supports evolution. Even in the fossil record fully developed creatures pop into the scene.

Partially developed creatures wouldn't live to make fossils. DUH!
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

Incorrect. Mutations aren't bad, they're just misunderstood.

[jillery]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:04:21 -0700 (PDT), Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Am Sonntag, 16. April 2017 18:59:55 UTC+2 schrieb Sean Dillon:
>> On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 11:44:53 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> > And NONE of the evolutionist theories on the origin of life is true. Like evolution itself. If it was obvious evolution has occured people would have doubted creation from the very beginning. But the evidence for creation is stronger than for evolution.
>>
>> It frequently occurs that the truth is not the most "obvious" answer. People didn't know the world was round for a very long time, because looking around you, it sure seems "obvious" that the world is flat.
>>
>> "God poofs species into existence" is an easier answer, because it doesn't require any thinking. But that doesn't mean the answer is correct. All of the evidence we have is a better fit to Evolution than to Special Creation:
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>
>Yes, and the most dense information storage system DNA can store 455 exabytes of data in 1 gram. How can evolution account for this? It can't.


Even if what you say is correct, one could only wonder why you think
evolution has a problem explaining it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:44:13 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:

>Evolution means increase in information

Nope; sorry.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:49:10 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Sean Dillon
<seand...@gmail.com>:

>On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 12:44:55 PM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> Evolution means increase in information which has never been confirmed.
>

>Sure it has. Every additive mutation is an increase in information. And the occurance of additive mutations have been observed.

OK, you're correct. I read his assertion as being about
increased phenotypic (?) complexity, and responded
appropriately.

>>Nothing supports evolution.
>
>Well... aside from these 29+ lines of evidence:
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>
>I know you're adverse to doing actual reading. But the information is there.

>
>>Even in the fossil record fully developed creatures pop into the scene.
>

>That's because "partially-formed life" would be too basic to fossilize.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 14:57:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill Rogers
<broger...@gmail.com>:

>On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 5:44:56 PM UTC-4, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> Dinosaurs ate birds, so they didn't evolve from them.
>
>Well, now I'm convinced.

Took you long enough. I've been convinced for quite a while;
now I just read his posts for the incredulity value ("How
can he *possibly* be that stupid?!?").

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 00:38:44 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

One also wonders who measures information by weight...

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 00:39:09 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

;-)

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a994709c-ecb8-4cf6...@googlegroups.com...
> See title.
>

You are pulling your substitute for intelligent arguments from a place where
I wouldn't put my fingers...

Grab a mirror and take a look if you can stand it.

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1b2d2973-89bc-48cb...@googlegroups.com...
> Am Sonntag, 16. April 2017 18:09:56 UTC+2 schrieb Sean Dillon:
>> On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 9:29:53 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> > Evolution is supported by no fact whatsoever. Abiogenesis, genetics and
>> > fossil record all refute evolution.
>>
>> Here are 29+ entire LINES of facts that support evolution:
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>>
>> You can keep spouting the same unsupported claims forever, AB... you
>> won't get any less wrong.
>
> Come on, nobody wants to read a wall of text.
> Make short points like me. Like the undisputed fact origin of life is
> impossible.
>
That's not a point, it is a bold and unsupported claim.

Gross ignorance is evidenced by facts disputed for about 160 years so far.

How old are you?

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:29563020-a17f-4d77...@googlegroups.com...
> Am Sonntag, 16. April 2017 18:24:54 UTC+2 schrieb Sean Dillon:

>> On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 11:19:54 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> > Am Sonntag, 16. April 2017 18:09:56 UTC+2 schrieb Sean Dillon:
>> > > On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 9:29:53 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> > > > Evolution is supported by no fact whatsoever. Abiogenesis, genetics
>> > > > and fossil record all refute evolution.
>> > >
>> > > Here are 29+ entire LINES of facts that support evolution:
>> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>> > >
>> > > You can keep spouting the same unsupported claims forever, AB... you
>> > > won't get any less wrong.
>> >
>> > Come on, nobody wants to read a wall of text.
>> > Make short points like me. Like the undisputed fact origin of life is
>> > impossible.
>>

>> No thank you. I'd rather actually support my arguments with information.
>> The fact that you don't is the reason you're so easy to rebut.
>>
>> For example, not only is the natural origin of life not impossible, but
>> there are a whole collection of plausible hypotheses to explain it:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
>
> Wikipedia is biased though. Atheists write lots of nonsense there.
> See articles like these:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
>

You are unbiased and openminded - just letting the facts speak for
themselves?
You aren't even capable of writing nonsense, you don't make sense at all.

How old are you?

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:08d287ae-3f47-4147...@googlegroups.com...

> And NONE of the evolutionist theories on the origin of life is true. Like
> evolution itself. If it was obvious evolution has occured people would
> have doubted creation from the very beginning. But the evidence for
> creation is stronger than for evolution.
>

I didn't know. Where is the evidence? Can you show some?

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:aff84083-3eb6-459c...@googlegroups.com...
> Am Sonntag, 16. April 2017 18:59:55 UTC+2 schrieb Sean Dillon:

>> On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 11:44:53 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> > And NONE of the evolutionist theories on the origin of life is true.
>> > Like evolution itself. If it was obvious evolution has occured people
>> > would have doubted creation from the very beginning. But the evidence
>> > for creation is stronger than for evolution.
>>

>> It frequently occurs that the truth is not the most "obvious" answer.
>> People didn't know the world was round for a very long time, because
>> looking around you, it sure seems "obvious" that the world is flat.
>>
>> "God poofs species into existence" is an easier answer, because it
>> doesn't require any thinking. But that doesn't mean the answer is
>> correct. All of the evidence we have is a better fit to Evolution than to
>> Special Creation:
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>
> Yes, and the most dense information storage system DNA can store 455
> exabytes of data in 1 gram. How can evolution account for this? It can't.
>

Nonsense, where did you get that from?

[Sean Dillon]

Well, the human genome wieghs about 3.6*10^-12 gram (by my back-of-napkin calculations), and contains about 770 MB of data.

I haven't run the numbers, but if you collected enough bare genomes to add up to 1 gram, the total data storage that collection would represent would be quite high. (Ignoring, of course, that most of the data would be redundant amongst the genomes.) Of course, there is really no scenario in which you would be assembling a pile of bare genomes.

The high information-to-mass ratio is easy enough for evolution to explain of course: the information is being stored at the level of individual molecules.

[Alpha Beta]

Chemical evolution is impossible, like the origin of life. Or creatures mutating into something else because mutations were proven to be harmful.

[Sean Dillon]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 10:59:53 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Chemical evolution is impossible, like the origin of life.

Asserted without evidence.

>Or creatures mutating into something else because mutations were proven to be harmful.

Actually, most mutations are neutral in effect. Mutations with beneficial outcomes have been observed, as have mutations with harmful outcomes.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

[Alpha Beta]

Neutral mutations have no affect on evolution because if nothing changes then there is no selective advantage.

[Alpha Beta]

Mutations just alter existing functionality, it can accidently happen that it's beneficial in some way, but that's rare. You need lots of correct mutations to create a complex organ. And that makes evolution mathematically impossible once again.

[Sean Dillon]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 11:19:54 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Neutral mutations have no affect on evolution because if nothing changes then there is no selective advantage.

That's sort of true. Mutations that have a neutral impact at the time they occur MAY become either harmful or beneficial at a later time, depending on the circumstances and what other mutations may occur.

But yes... at the time they occur, neutral mutations do not impact evolution. However, both beneficial and harmful mutations have also been observed.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

And more to the point, you stated that it has been proved that mutations are harmful. Since most mutations are neutral, and some are actually beneficial, your statement was incorrect.

[Sean Dillon]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 11:24:54 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Mutations just alter existing functionality,

More accurately, some mutations alter phenotypic development and maintenance. But you're basically correct.

>it can accidently happen that it's beneficial in some way, but that's rare.

Comparatively rare, yes. But the fact is, every one of us is born with an average of 120 novel mutant base pairs. And there are about 7 billion people in the world right now. So looking at humans as an example, we can see that, even if beneficial mutations are relavitely rare, there are still going to be a lot of them in every new generation.

>You need lots of correct mutations to create a complex organ. And that makes evolution mathematically impossible once again.

Show me the math that makes that impossible.

[Alpha Beta]

They are more bad than good.

[Burkhard]

Sean Dillon wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 11:19:54 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> Neutral mutations have no affect on evolution because if nothing changes then there is no selective advantage.
>
> That's sort of true.

Not even that I'd say. Neutral drift is a legitimate part of evolution.
Not all traits are fixed by adaptation, some simply by statistical
sampling.

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:27:35 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 11:19:54 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>> Neutral mutations have no affect on evolution because if nothing changes then there is no selective advantage.
>>
>> That's sort of true.
>
>Not even that I'd say. Neutral drift is a legitimate part of evolution.
>Not all traits are fixed by adaptation, some simply by statistical
>sampling.
>
> Mutations that have a neutral impact at the time they occur MAY become
>either harmful or beneficial at a later time, depending on the
>circumstances and what other mutations may occur.

Be very careful here.

You are going way over poor AB's head. How can he know anything about
mutations, good, bad or indifferent, apart from what he's read in his
secret book?


Have fun,


Joe Cummings

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:27:35 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Sean Dillon wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 11:19:54 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>> Neutral mutations have no affect on evolution because if nothing changes then there is no selective advantage.
>>
>> That's sort of true.
>
>Not even that I'd say. Neutral drift is a legitimate part of evolution.
>Not all traits are fixed by adaptation, some simply by statistical
>sampling.
>
> Mutations that have a neutral impact at the time they occur MAY become
>either harmful or beneficial at a later time, depending on the
>circumstances and what other mutations may occur.

A point of pedantry: One can identify two kinds of neutral mutations.
One kind changes the DNA, but said change causes no change to the
proteins it creates, as with a point mutation to a synonymous triplet.
Another kind changes the DNA and so the proteins it creates, but said
changes to the proteins have no functional effect on the organisms
living in a particular environment. An example is our inability to
make functional vitamin C. When that mutation first occurred, the
organisms got sufficient vitamin C from their diet. This mutation is
disadvantageous only in environments lacking fresh foods.

>> But yes... at the time they occur, neutral mutations do not impact evolution. However, both beneficial and harmful mutations have also been observed.
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
>>
>> And more to the point, you stated that it has been proved that mutations are harmful. Since most mutations are neutral, and some are actually beneficial, your statement was incorrect.
>>

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Apr 18, Alpha Beta wrote
(in article<e4838334-c08c-4718...@googlegroups.com>):

> Am Dienstag, 18. April 2017 18:29:53 UTC+2 schrieb Sean Dillon:

> They are more bad than good.

in the first place... you can back that statement up with actual evidence,
can’t you?

in the second place... so what. As long as _some_ are good, then there is
beneficial change. And that’s evolution. Worse for your position, some
‘bad’ mutations _also_ end up causing beneficial change. I’m thinking
of things like, oh, animals which lose the ability to move... such as corals.
Or animals which live in deep caves and don’t have eyes anymore; they
don’t need them, there’s no light and eyes would be useless, and would be
vulnerable and would require resources better used on body parts which have
actual functions in their environment. Or flightless birds such as ostriches;
they’re way too big to fly, they have big, strong, legs... and tiny wings.

but thanks for conceding the point and admitting that not all mutations are
bad.

[Ernest Major]

I presume that he took the mean weight of a nucleotide and divided one
gram by it. (A nucleotide pair, in a nucleic acid molecule composed of
C, G, A and T, contains 2 bits worth of sequence information, so the
number of bits of sequence information in a nucleic acid molecule
composed of C, G, A and T is the number of nucleotides.)

Of course it's high school chemistry, not evolution, that explains that.
Evolution explains why a typical sample of biological DNA contains
several orders of magnitude less effective information.

--
alias Ernest Major