• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Challenge question for evolution doubters

skeptigirl said:
Kleinman, if you re-state specifically what YOU NEED TO SEE, not what we haven't shown you, and you state it in specifics, not generalities, that will be keeping with the thread topic.
Click to expand...

Since your previous post did not address point 5) how multiple selection pressures can evolve more rapidly than single selection pressures and that is the issue that I have studied, I will continue to discuss this issue on the “annoying creationists” thread. Your responses to the other 4 points are the typical evolutionists’ speculations and evasions. I prefer a mathematically based discussion to try and avoid some of these speculations.

Again, see you kids over on the “annoying creationists” thread.
 
kleinman said:
Since your previous post did not address point 5) how multiple selection pressures can evolve more rapidly than single selection pressures ...
Click to expand...
No, I responded that it is a meaningless question, grounded in ignorance.
 
kleinman said:

I prefer a mathematically based discussion to try and avoid some of these speculations.

Again, see you kids over on the “annoying creationists” thread.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you don't prefer a nonsense based discussion? I can't believe how childish the people here have been to answer your questions. If only they would know better and would just shut up and accept everything you say.

You realize that some of us here have taken math classes before, right? Like, in schools that are hard? Where we have to do a lot of work and thinking?
 
Well, kleinman just proves the point of the thread, no amount of evidence will ever matter. Kleinman is in denial since accepting evolution might make him have to question the whole original sin-Jesus story. It of course doesn't dawn on him that he is making the presumption he knows more than the vast majority of researchers who are providing us with incredible scientific breakthroughs.

Do you suppose kleinman understands where all the latest medical breakthroughs are coming from? Obviously not.
 
kleinman said:
Tell us how life arose in the primordial soup...
Click to expand...

Evolution is not abiogenesis.

...and then tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated...
Click to expand...

There exists a phenomenon wherein things coevolve together. DNA replicase is one. Flower pollinating bees are another.

...and then tell us what the selection pressure is that would evolve a gene de novo...
Click to expand...

We keep telling you are using "de novo" incorrectly.

...and then tell us what the selection pressure is that evolved reptiles into birds...
Click to expand...

Our inability to provide selection pressures (it would never be a single one) does not mean it didn't happen, kleinman.

...and then tell us how multiple selection pressures can evolve more rapidly than single selection pressures.
Click to expand...

It isn't multiple selection pressures which evolve more rapidly, it's stronger selection, which can be the result of multiple selection pressures. I've already provided a mathematical model of this.

Feel free to fill all these minor gaps in your theory of evolution in your next post on this thread.

Please forgive me if I don’t post to often on this thread, I’m a little busy annoying evolutionists on another thread with the mathematics of mutation and selection, but I will look in to see how you fill these minor gaps in your theory.
Click to expand...

Already explained, selection works on variation, and variation is caused by mutation. You have it all wrong.
 
Taffer said, "Our inability to provide selection pressures (it would never be a single one) does not mean it didn't happen, kleinman."

It isn't the inability, it's not wanting to bother.
 
skeptigirl said:
Taffer said, "Our inability to provide selection pressures (it would never be a single one) does not mean it didn't happen, kleinman."

It isn't the inability, it's not wanting to bother.
Click to expand...

That's very true, skeptigirl, but it's the principle of the thing. :D
 
kleinman said:
Read the “annoying creationists” thread, you will learn how mutation and selection really works.
Click to expand...

Yes, but not from you.

Now that makes sense, the dumb theory of evolution is explained by removing the dumber concept of abiogenesis.
Click to expand...

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, kleinman.
 
kleinman said:
So all those genes required for the first living things came from where?
Click to expand...

Who said the first 'living' things had genes?

You’ve just solved the chicken and egg problem (or is it really the two chickens and egg problem?).
Click to expand...

The problem never existed, once coevolution was figured out.

Tell that to the infectious disease experts who use combination therapy to treat HIV.
Click to expand...

Their usage of multiple antiretrovirals has nothing to do with the speed of evolution.

Really, how did reptiles turn into birds?
Click to expand...

By evolution.

You really need to learn how mutation and selection works.
Click to expand...

Don't call the kettle black, mr. pot. You need to know how evolution works.

My goodness, an evolutionist brings out the “strawman” argument. Why do that when “ditto” has been working so well?
Click to expand...

DO you understand why a strawman argument is a fallacy?

Oh, I see you have a peer reviewed and published model of mutation and natural selection that shows this, since that is what I have.
Click to expand...

Do not claim others' works as your own.

However, for once, you are right. The rates of evolution ARE based upon the level of variation in a population, and the level of selection imposed.
 
kleinman said:
Since your previous post did not address point 5) how multiple selection pressures can evolve more rapidly than single selection pressures and that is the issue that I have studied, I will continue to discuss this issue on the “annoying creationists” thread. Your responses to the other 4 points are the typical evolutionists’ speculations and evasions. I prefer a mathematically based discussion to try and avoid some of these speculations.
Click to expand...

Have you forgotten already that I have provided you with a mathematical model for increasing evolution rates with increased selection pressures?
 
It has sort of bothered me that nobody has ever been particularly taken with my evolution argument - that it would take supernatural intervention to prevent evolution from happening given a vast expanse of time. Obviously, evolution had to happen because it did happen and it would happen again if the world were to be recreated. But given billions of years and the nature of life, one would have to predict it would happen even if we were to ignor all the evidence for evolution. I just think we go at it backward and play into the hands of creationist dopes when we approach the evolution argument the way we do. Given the nature of life and a vast expanse of time there is simply no way for evolution not to happen. It is unavoidable. I think this is a different than usual and more correct approach when making the case for evolution. One can argue about the completeness of Darwin's theory, but to even need to debate whether or not evolution takes place is simply mind boggling.
 
Last edited:
Taffer said:
Who said the first 'living' things had genes?
Click to expand...
There is a problem solving the abiogenesis question with the minimum number of genes to sustain an independently reproducing organism.

The quest is on to find the smallest number of genes and it may have gone lower than this evidence:
Reducing the number of genes needed for life
‘In the case of C. rudii, the genome has gone beyond what seems possible for life,’ said Nancy Moran, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson. ‘The genes that are missing are considered essential for basic tasks like replication, transcription, and translation,’ she explained. ‘It’s still kind of a mystery how this bacterium survives.’

In addition to harboring only 182 genes, the arrangement of the genes is odd. ‘The genes are very closely packed and most overlap by an average of 10 bases,’ explained Moran. ‘This is another first for bacteria.’ Overlapping genes, where a few bases at a given location form part of more than one gene, are often found in genomes whose size is highly constrained (though they are also found, to a lesser degree, in higher organisms, including mammals). The vast majority, 90 per cent, of Carsonella genes overlap.
Click to expand...

Size Limits of Very Small Microorganisms; Panel 2 (Continued); CAN LARGE dsDNA-CONTAINING VIRUSES PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE MINIMAL GENOME SIZE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT LIFE? is another good discussion of the minimum number problem in abiogenesis.

Here's a paper that would make Behe envious. You have to wonder why all these Bible believers don't just move on to this next scientific challenge for determining the origin of life and stake out a new claim, "Science can't prove where a cell came from therefore God did it." We could at least move on past this evolution denial stuff. (Oh, but then there is still that Jesus/original sin story stuff that needs to be re-worked. :rolleyes: )
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I am of the opinion that there is NO evidence that could ever convince a creationist that he is wrong because you can never rule out the possibility that God created life to look exactly as it evolved.
 
ChristineR said:
I am of the opinion that there is NO evidence that could ever convince a creationist that he is wrong because you can never rule out the possibility that God created life to look exactly as it evolved.
Click to expand...
If so, why do they need a middle man, why are they so insecure.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom