Not so fast -- researchers find that lasting evolutionary change takes about one million years

Aug 22, 2011
As this graph shows, significant changes in body size - one evolutionary trait that can be tracked through the fossil record - take about one million years before major changes accumulate and persist. (Graphic courtesy of Oregon State University)

In research that will help address a long-running debate and apparent contradiction between short- and long-term evolutionary change, scientists have discovered that although evolution is a constant and sometimes rapid process, the changes that hit and stick tend to take a long time.

Give or take a little, one million years seems to be the magic number.

A new study, published this week in , combined for the first time data from short periods such as 10-100 years with much longer evidence found in the over millions of years.

It determined that rapid changes in local populations often don't continue, stand the test of time or spread through a species.

In other words, just because humans are two or three inches taller now than they were 200 years ago, it doesn't mean that process will continue and we'll be two or three feet taller in 2,000 years. Or even as tall in one million years as we are now.

" is clearly a reality over fairly short time periods, sometimes just a few generations," said Josef Uyeda, lead author of the study and a zoologist at Oregon State University. "But those rapid changes do not always persist and may be confined to small populations. For reasons that are not completely clear, the data show the long-term dynamics of evolution to be quite slow."

Across a broad range of species, the research found that for a major change to persist and for changes to accumulate, it took about one million years. The researchers wrote that this occurred repeatedly in a "remarkably consistent pattern."

"What's interesting is not that we have so much and , but that we have so little," Uyeda said. "It's a paradox as to why evolution should be so slow."

Long periods of little change, Uyeda said, are called "stasis," a pattern that originally led to the concept of "punctuated equilibrium," controversial when it was first proposed in the early 1970s. This research supports the overall pattern of stasis and punctuational change. However, Uyeda says there may be different causal mechanisms at work than have often been proposed.

"We believe that for changes to persist, the underlying force that caused them has to also persist and be widespread," Uyeda said.

"This isn't just some chance genetic mutation that takes over," he said. "Evolutionary adaptations are caused by some force of natural selection such as environmental change, predation or anthropogenic disturbance, and these forces have to continue and become widespread for the change to persist and accumulate. That's slower and more rare than one might think."

Though slow, however, the process appears to be relentless. Most species change so much that they rarely ever last more than 1-10 million years before going extinct, or developing into a new species, the scientists noted.

The exact cause of these long-term, persistent evolutionary changes is not certain. The scientists said that climate change, in itself, does not appear to be a driving force, because many species have remained substantially unchanged over time periods when climates changed dramatically.

This study is one of the first of its type to help reconcile the rapid evolution seen by biologists in contemporary species; the slow, stable changes observed by paleontologists; and dramatic, macroevolutionary differences in body sizes.

Explore further: No walk in the park for S. Africa's embattled game rangers

Related Stories

Why The Amazon Rainforest Is So Rich In Species

Dec 22, 2005

Tropical areas of south and central America such as the Amazon rainforest are home to some 7500 species of butterfly compared with only around 65 species in Britain. UCL scientists have ruled out the common theory that attributed ...

Speedy toads advance theory of evolution

Mar 23, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Speed and the mating habits of the Australian cane toad are set to expand the theory of evolution according to research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of t ...

Tuatara, the fastest evolving animal

Mar 20, 2008

In a study of New Zealand’s “living dinosaur” the tuatara, evolutionary biologist, and ancient DNA expert, Professor David Lambert and his team from the Allan Wilson Centre for Molecular Ecology and Evolution recovered ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 135

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

aroc91
4.4 / 5 (21) Aug 22, 2011
The reason that it appears that stasis occurs is simply that evolution never did in the first place.
Here is simple further support that evolutionary processes are simply too slow to create all the diverse lifeforms we see around us. Yet at the same time the deterioation in the genomes are way too fast for life to have existed for millions of years. Therein lies the death-knell of evolutionary thought - not enough change fast enough and much too fast downhill degradation. The so-called single ancestor Evolution is a myth.


Troll.
Nanobanano
1.8 / 5 (30) Aug 22, 2011
Troll.


The usual way conversation takes places is like this:

Speaker A: Makes valid point.

Speaker B: Either agrees or disagrees and offers an argument as to why they agree or disagree.

Kevin made a valid point. Simply ignoring him or calling him a troll is not a valid response.

One of the reasons for aging is that our DNA is decaying, not just on a genomic level, but on a molecular level involving telomeres and the very individual base pairs.

Human beings have not changed in any significant fashion, except possibly negatively, throughout the past 5000 years, and certainly not the past 500 years. We have artwork from the classics showing us that humans were identical to today for at least 400 to 500 years ago.

Additionally, in most cases, changes in height, at least shortening, can be shown to be a food nutrition problem, NOT a genetic problem, an obvious example would be North Korea, where the people are actually shorter than S. Korea.
CHollman82
4.4 / 5 (19) Aug 22, 2011
"Kevin made a valid point."

No he did not...

"One of the reasons for aging is that our DNA is decaying, not just on a genomic level, but on a molecular level involving telomeres and the very individual base pairs."

What's your point? Or should I ask what do you incorrectly think this has to do with evolutionary theory?

"Human beings have not changed in any significant fashion, except possibly negatively, throughout the past 5000 years, and certainly not the past 500 years."

This is false, but of course you threw in the qualifier "significant" as a catch-all defense... you can move that goal post around as necessary.

"Additionally, in most cases, changes in height, at least shortening, can be shown to be a food nutrition problem, NOT a genetic problem"

So you think that you are making a good point by stating that humans haven't changed size much in 5000 years in response to an article stating that large scale changes take millions of years to accumulate through evolution?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (17) Aug 22, 2011
Here is simple further support that evolutionary processes are simply too slow to create all the diverse lifeforms we see around us.
-Says the non-scientist with the preconceived unscientific agenda and no compunctions about lying to support it.
Kevin made a valid point.
If he ever does it will be either a mistake on his part or sheer, dumb luck. As he has no understanding of science with which to make informed judgements about it.
CHollman82
4.8 / 5 (16) Aug 22, 2011
Here is simple further support that evolutionary processes are simply too slow to create all the diverse lifeforms we see around us.


Tell me what 1 million years divided by 4.5 billion years is... what percentage is it?
SemiNerd
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2011
Here is simple further support that evolutionary processes are simply too slow to create all the diverse lifeforms we see around us.
-Says the non-scientist with the preconceived unscientific agenda and no compunctions about lying to support it.
Kevin made a valid point.
If he ever does it will be either a mistake on his part or sheer, dumb luck. As he has no understanding of science with which to make informed judgements about it.

The reason kevinrts was called a troll, is because he is. He is a religious nut trolling on a science forum. Every article on evolution proves that evolution doesn't exist, and every article on cosmology demonstrates that the universe can't be more than 9000 years old. I keep reporting him for violating the comments guildlines, but he hasn't yet been booted permanently.
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2011
"Up to 80% of the bacteria in samples from the wild appear to be metabolically inactive - many of which can be resuscitated. Such dormancy is responsible for the high diversity levels of most natural ecosystems.

http://en.wikiped...Dormancy

"Various claims have been made about reviving bacterial spores to active metabolism after millions of years. There are claims of spores from amber being revived after 40 million years, and spores from salt deposits in New Mexico being revived after 240 million years. These claims have been made by credible researchers, but are not universally accepted. In a related find, a scientist was able to coax 34,000 year old salt-captured bacteria to reproduce and his results were duplicated at a separate independent laboratory facility.

http://en.wikiped...rganisms

Within the scope from the definitions for life, dormancy is an accepted property of life.

IscopeU
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2011
With fieldstudy data from peer-reviewed cave-paintings.

But seriously this research is great, opened up a fantastic opportunity to ask questions. We have fast evolution being an obvious reality plus this brilliant graph, adding it up and we are not getting to 'gradual changes over time'. I would enjoy some kicking against long held believes actually. Since atheism is being defended with evolution, this whole science is closed off with barbed wire. I find that a shame. I'm sure there are some great Darwinian, Lamarckian and theistic arguments to be made with the results from this paper. Best argument wins. Fight! *rings bell*
IscopeU
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2011
-snip-

Within the scope from the definitions for life, dormancy is an accepted property of life.



Of course, but this holds not true for multicellular organisms. So your argument only reaches 'so' far. Plus bringing back 'original' genes in the population would in my mind bring the population closer to that 'original' state.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 22, 2011
@IscopeU
Dormancy is seeking a place in evolution. Regardless of whether the 'concept' 'loses meaning' for life greater than single celled life.

I introduced no argument, only inquiry. What is the role and meaning of dormancy in life and evolution?
Guy_Underbridge
5 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2011
One of the reasons for aging is that our DNA is decaying...

Speak for yourself

Human beings have not changed in any significant fashion, except possibly negatively, throughout the past 5000 years, and certainly not the past 500 years...

...and on a million year scale that's what percentage?

Additionally, in most cases, changes in height, at least shortening, can be shown to be a food nutrition problem...

...and an organism adapting to environmental factors causing a permanent change in the baseline could be also called what? (Hint: it starts with an 'e')
MP3Car
5 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2011
Here is simple further support that evolutionary processes are simply too slow to create all the diverse lifeforms we see around us.


Tell me what 1 million years divided by 4.5 billion years is... what percentage is it?


Sorry CHollman82, meant to give your comment about 1M/4.5B a 5/5 (even if there is some disagreement of the exact numbers you quoted, the order of magnitude is probably pretty close). I accidentally gave it a 3/5 :( darn touch screen! Sorry, didn't mean to pull your average down!
Ethelred
5 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2011
Kevin made a valid point.
Kevin only makes valid points by accident.

Speaker B: Either agrees or disagrees
Only with dealing with people that did not long ago prove themselves to be trolls. To have a discussion Speaker A would have to stick around and discuss things. This is exceeding rare thing for Kevin to do. Mostly he engaged in hit and run Creationist posts. If he doesn't want to be thought of as a pure troll he will have stop making hit and run posts.

but on a molecular level involving telomeres and the very individual base pairs.
That is part of the genome. And has nothing to do with Kevin's post.

Human beings have not changed in any significant fashion, except possibly negatively, throughout the past 5000 years,
False. We have adapted to dozens of diseases AND almost all human have smaller teeth now AND few have edge on edge dentition anymore. My brother is one of the few.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2011
certainly not the past 500 years
False. Again diseases have been adapted too. Very few Amerinds are left that are easily vulnerable to smallpox.

No one expects humans to show much VISUAL change over that short a time. That is part of what the article is about. And it wasn't Kevin's point. He just wants support his Young Earth Creationist myth by trying to muddy up real science.

Ethelred
Objectivist
5 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2011
Kevin, seriously, do you have sirens and warning lights going off in your house whenever an article regarding evolution is posted on physorg? And do you have ready-to-paste snippets of nonsense prepared for such occasions? Because it seems so.
Prophage7
5 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2011
I always find it intriguing when people like Kevin comment on such matters when they clearly have never even read a scientific paper much less understood ones implications. They just show up and spew nonsense which only manages to prove their ignorance on the subject at hand.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2011
Human beings have not changed in any significant fashion, except possibly negatively, throughout the past 5000 years,

You base this statement on what?

We have artwork from the classics showing us that humans were identical to today

Art of that period is a particularly bad indicator as it shows an idealized version of humanity - not in any way the 'average cititzen'.
DavidMcC
5 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2011
Hush1: "I introduced no argument, only inquiry. What is the role and meaning of dormancy in life and evolution?"

I think dormancy is a way of surviving when food is scarce. It's better than starving to death, because, by postponing death, you have a chance of reviving if food returns before you die.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2011
Except the article only concludes that short term shows rapid evolution over a few generations as Uyeda admits. The long term is based solely on the % change in BODY SIZE.

So if you already assume (for instance) dinos become birds, it's a biased chart when you look at long term.

The exact cause of these long-term, persistent evolutionary changes is not certain.


So the study offers nothing helpful.

This research supports the overall pattern of stasis and punctuational change.


Why do you even need stasis then, if punctuation gets it right or the species dies?
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2011
I think dormancy is a way of surviving when food is scarce.


Sure, but the problem is that no animal species reproduces while hibernating or lying dormant.
NameIsNotNick
4 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2011
Kevin doesn't understand the article. It would appear, from a long term evolutionary point of view, that we are not so far from our ape-like ancestors that without constant evolutionary pressure our progeny could conceivably become ape-like again. Disturbing thought...
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2011
Well let's understand it a little better then shall we. By the chart given, the vast majority of points are still within 75-80% body change even up to 10^9.

75-80% change in body size for comparison isn't much. Dogs vary easily over that range compared to wolf ancestors.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 24, 2011
"I think dormancy is a way of surviving when food is scarce. It's better than starving to death, because, by postponing death, you have a chance of reviving if food returns before you die." - DavidMcC

You die regardless. With and without dormancy. Single cells are really gonna be pissed off - after hundreds of millions of years dormancy only to die when the times are good.
DavidMcC
5 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2011

You die regardless. With and without dormancy. Single cells are really gonna be pissed off - after hundreds of millions of years dormancy only to die when the times are good.


Not necesarily, and the domancy improves your chances of surviving until food returns. It's what many bears do in the winter, because they need a lot of food, and there isn't much in winter.
DavidMcC
5 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2011
I think dormancy is a way of surviving when food is scarce.


Sure, but the problem is that no animal species reproduces while hibernating or lying dormant.


Of course not, that's missing the point. Dormancy increases its chances of living long enough to reach the next breeding season alive, or when food returns.
hush1
not rated yet Aug 24, 2011
Anthropocentric facetiousness. Couldn't resist.

Anyway. If dormancy is an option for single cells, then extinction's meaning becomes less clear.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2011
The long term is based solely on the % change in BODY SIZE.
They were clearly looking for something that they could measure reliably over long periods of time.

So if you already assume (for instance) dinos become birds, it's a biased chart when you look at long term.
No. The chart is to measure evolution occurring. Unlike you they KNOW it is occurring. They just wanted a reliable measurement. Thus it was only biased towards reliability.

So the study offers nothing helpful.
I agree. Not for you reason though because I, like the authors, know that evolution does occur. The thing is that their definition of 'significant change' seems to equate to a new species as they found that meaningful change, by their definition, took 1MegaYear and since the average life of a species is a bit more than 1MegaYear they seem to have made a definition that is not very different from the extinction rate which is already known.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2011
if punctuation gets it right or the species dies?
No. Punctuated equilibrium deals with speciation. Which can be entail the evolution of a new species while a the main body of the ancestral species continues. The new species has already gotten it right or it would not be a new species.

Sure, but the problem is that no animal species reproduces while hibernating or lying dormant.
That is OK. It is still a survival mechanism. It is a way to survive INSTEAD of dying. Pretty clear. Especially useful for organisms that function best in conditions that are usually temporary. Such as mud pounds that dry up every year. Sometimes staying dry for many years. Rain comes and voila the dormant organism go to town reproducing.

Ethelred
DavidMcC
5 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2011
Anthropocentric facetiousness. Couldn't resist.

Anyway. If dormancy is an option for single cells, then extinction's meaning becomes less clear.


Various single celled organisms can go dormant when food is scarce. They form cysts. Eg, amoeba, which clump together, some sacrificing themselves so that others that are there genetic clones, may survive.
DavidMcC
not rated yet Aug 24, 2011
Well let's understand it a little better then shall we. By the chart given, the vast majority of points are still within 75-80% body change even up to 10^9.

75-80% change in body size for comparison isn't much. Dogs vary easily over that range compared to wolf ancestors.


That's probably because of human intervention in their phenotypic evolution. Having said that, it is obviously POSSIBLE for this to happen without human intervention, but less likely, especially so quickly.
DavidMcC
not rated yet Aug 24, 2011
W\r to cysts: they don't last forever, so extinction is still possible, even with them. Likewise fungal spores, etc.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2011
Dogs vary easily over that range compared to wolf ancestors.
Not easily. Feral dogs the world over average 30 pounds or 16 kilograms. It takes rather savage breeding to get really large or small dogs and they usually have health problems. Domestic cats have not responded with the same level of plasticity as dogs.

Ethelred
NameIsNotNick
not rated yet Aug 25, 2011
Dogs vary easily over that range compared to wolf ancestors.
Not easily. Feral dogs the world over average 30 pounds or 16 kilograms. It takes rather savage breeding to get really large or small dogs and they usually have health problems. Domestic cats have not responded with the same level of plasticity as dogs.
Ethelred

Actually, this is a pretty good example of what they are talking about. The dog sizes don't "stick" but tend to revert unless they are constantly line bred.
Ethelred
not rated yet Aug 25, 2011
Traits that cost resources like food and energy, such as size, only stick if the environmental conditions require it. With domesticated dogs that the owners are the environment that creates the need for size.

The problem with only using size for the study is that if a species is successful in either

Increasing population by predation
Increasing population by avoiding predation

That it tends to affect the environment in such a way that the constraints on being small may go away. That is larger predators may kill off so many of the prey animals that only the small predators can get enough food. Thus returning the species to a smaller size.

I think that increasing size in prey animals is more likely to stick and then only if the predators increased in size to force the issue.

What I am getting at is that size is not a particularly good way to measure lasting evolutionary change. Its easy but that is all that it has going for it.

Ethelred
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2011
Dormancy increases its chances of living long enough to reach the next breeding season alive, or when food returns.


But it is the point. Dormancy must be an initial possibility. You can't arrive at it after you already need it. And further, when you come out of hibernation/dormancy it is because the food/environment has returned to stability, so you are only ever reproducing in an environment you are already largely adapted to.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2011
They just wanted a reliable measurement. Thus it was only biased towards reliability.


Shaq is 100% my body size. Body size is a poor measurement.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2011
What I am getting at is that size is not a particularly good way to measure lasting evolutionary change.


That's all I was saying. Therefore, it is not a reliable study, when that is what the study is solely based on. We actually agree here.

I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand that you just have to stay opposed on principle because I happen to disagree with millions of years as even a necessity.
Ethelred
not rated yet Aug 25, 2011
What is difficult to understand, is why you prefer to believe in a book written by ignorant men very long ago rather than the actual physical evidence.

The million of years, indeed billions are there. They happened. Evolution occurred over those many years. Mutations happen. Selection happens. Thus evolution cannot not happen as well.

As for dormancy it really doesn't take much for it to get started. It is quite natural for bacteria to just plain shut down when there is no food. All they are is a bag with chemicals that either undergo reactions or don't. Any mutations that enhance restarting when conditions become MORE favorable will be selected for.

Why is that reality so difficult for you to accept?

Ethelred
hush1
not rated yet Aug 25, 2011
So evolutionary traits such as the trait physical size used in this study to show lasting evolutionary change is not a trait of lasting evolutionary change.

I still don't understand. A lasting evolutionary change is the cell. The single cell can be any size. From the ostrich embryo (largest single cell) to a virus.

Of course all this doesn't hold for multicellular life...

"...unicellular organisms, organisms composed of a single cell, out number multicellular organisms by such a huge proportion that in terms of numbers it's essentially correct to say that life on Earth is predominately unicellular."

http://www.madsci...b.r.html

hush1
not rated yet Aug 26, 2011
http://www.qwiki....hyophore]http://www.qwiki....hyophore[/url]

Correction:
Smallest to largest free living singled cells sizes ranges from approx:

http://microbewik...r_ubique
0.37-0.89 m Est. Pop. 10 ^ 28th. Outweighting, taken together, all fish of the seas combined.

to

http://www.qwiki....hyophore]http://www.qwiki....hyophore[/url]

20cm
hush1
not rated yet Aug 26, 2011
Smallest length correction:
0.37-0.89 um. (micron)
370nm-890nm. (nanometers)
Ethelred
not rated yet Aug 26, 2011
So evolutionary traits such as the trait physical size used in this study to show lasting evolutionary change is not a trait of lasting evolutionary change.
Pretty much. Size is a fairly simple variable. Many genes effect size so it can change easily, up to a point, when conditions change.

Yellowdart's mention of Shaq is incorrect by the way. Shag has twice the MASS which is not what was being measured. If Shaq has twice the size of Yellowdart then YD is about 3.5 feet tall. I think that is unlikely. That however is the sort of error that YD and others that sing the ever popular La La I Can't Hear You song are likely to make. Anything to avoid the truth.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Aug 26, 2011
Lasting change is usually going to be something other than size UNLESS the size required other changes that stick to support the size. A new tool kit sticks such as mammals having different tooth types instead of just kind of tooth like reptiles. Much more frequently would be a new enzyme that increases options. Size on its own is just mass and length. Something that comes and goes over time. More food more size can be supported. Less food and the large die. BUT a new enzyme that allows greater efficiency with the food available is something that will usually stick.

And yes this my thinking as opposed to something I read. I suspect real scientists would agree with it.

Ethelred
hush1
not rated yet Aug 26, 2011
http://psychcentr...oing-up/

Something is amiss...

"...more and more journals are retracting journal articles they previously published.

Worse yet, nearly 32 percent of the retracted papers are not noted as retracted. Retracted in scientific language means that the paper has been withdrawn and should be ignored as though it never existed in the scientific literature."

Physorg has a 100% track record:
Posting all the articles from the 32% retracted papers not noted as retracted;

Just joking. Still. To many readers in awe of where and who did the papers, instead of trusting their own judgement.
No wonder every second thread commentary starts off with in the spirit of:
"I'm going to have to call BS on this" followed with the patiently outlined, well-reasoned, obvious researcher's error.
Only to be shouted down:
Disqualified, unless you're in the same line of research.

Whatever.
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2011
If it takes a million years for evolutionary change and the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that leaves at most 4,500 opportunities for evolutionary events.

Current estimates are that there are 8.7 million species currently on earth. This does not include the unknown numbers which have become extinct.

If this article is correct, then the earth must be older than the universe -- and obvious impossibility.
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2011
4,500 "opportunities" means 4,500 geological "game changers"?

Predominate life form on Earth is the single cell organism.

The size variation?
From 370nm-890nm to 20cm.

The population size?
10^40
(conservative guesstimate.)
http://www.pnas.o...6578.pdf

Excerpt:

"Assuming a prokaryotic mutation rate of 4 3 1027
mutations per gene per DNA replication (86, 87), four simultaneous mutations in every gene shared by the total population of prokaryotes would be expected to occur once every 0.4, 0.5, 3.4, or 170 hr, respectively.

Five simultaneous mutations in every gene shared by all four populations would be expected to occur every 60 yr. The capacity for a large number of simultaneous mutations distinguishes prokaryotic from eukaryotic evolution..."

We single cells have 10 million species.
To us, you multicellular organisms are low life. :)
Stay single!
Humans clumping their cells together. Ugh. What a mess.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2011
The million of years, indeed billions are there. They happened. Evolution occurred over those many years.


No, not by definition. By definition, evolution occurs at reproduction. It's like a batch reactor. In comes the ingredients, they mix, out comes the product. This is why you always find well adapted species and never some brand of intermediate. Simply because we do not understand why one gene turns on while 3 others turn off, does not mean it is random. And if there are no limits of morphological change over time, then why should there be limits on the amount of variation that can occur at one reproduction event?? Mutations are errors in the code, corruption. The genes attempt to minimize and compensate in response. They are never beneficial and in nature, quickly selected out.

Accumulation isn't needed over millions of years. The right genes can turn on and off and rearrange within just a few generations, and they must or species go extinct.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2011
Yellowdart's mention of Shaq is incorrect by the way. Shag has twice the MASS which is not what was being measured. If Shaq has twice the size of Yellowdart then YD is about 3.5 feet tall. I think that is unlikely. That however is the sort of error that YD and others that sing the ever popular La La I Can't Hear You song are likely to make. Anything to avoid the truth.>>


Really? Re-read very SLLOOOWWWLLLYY what I said about Shaq. It is you that has no only misquoted what I said, but then based your argument on it. I said "body size". Which does not imply simply one or the other specifically.

Is height the only factor as you seem to assert?

Shaq is 7'1'', he has weighed as much as 340lbs (and looks heavier frankly).

But the smallest adult human on the planet is a 23.5'' Filipino who weighs about 12 lbs.

So body size for a species can vary widely, for many reasons even aside from genetics.

Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2011
Yellowdart, read the article. It is about linear measurements not mass. That was my point. I didn't misquote you because I didn't quote you. What you said was irrelevant to what was being measured in the article.

Yellowdart's mention of Shaq is incorrect by the way. Shag has twice the MASS which is not what was being measured. If Shaq has twice the size of Yellowdart then YD is about 3.5 feet tall. I think that is unlikely
I covered the bases as opposed to making a direct quote.

Is height the only factor as you seem to assert?
It is not MASS, it is LENGTH or height, or whatever it was LINEAR that was being measured. I know full well what Shaq's weight is and was. I have been a Laker fan for decades.

Filipino who weighs about 12 lbs.
And he isn't YOU and the weight is not what the article was about. Are YOU 3.5 feet tall? If not then you are NOT half the LENGTH or HEIGHT of Shaq and the article is using a LINEAR measurement

Try reading SLOWLY what I wrote

Ethelred
CHollman82
5 / 5 (2) Aug 31, 2011
Mutations are errors in the code, corruption. The genes attempt to minimize and compensate in response. They are never beneficial and in nature, quickly selected out.


This is incorrect and is evidence of a gross misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. First, you must understand that there is no such thing as an "error" in genetics. For something to be an error it must have been done intentionally with a specific purpose in mind, genotype changes do not qualify. Furthermore, mutations are usually detrimental to the organism, but there is no reason they MUST be. Beneficial mutation is an important part of evolutionary change, along with genetic recombination and natural selection.

Finally, the idea that your genes "attempt to minimize [damage] and compensate in response" to a detrimental mutation is utter nonsense. Genes do not attempt to do anything, they are unconscious. Even if we ignore the anthropomorphism the point you were trying to make is still incorrect.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2011
If it takes a million years for evolutionary change
It doesn't.

that leaves at most 4,500 opportunities for evolutionary events
No, even using YOUR incorrect concept. Using that ERRONEOUS idea that would be 4,500 per BRANCHING and it still wrong because reproduction almost always involves one or more mutations per offspring.

Current estimates are that there are 8.7 million
Which I think is overstated but even with your idea that allows for a LOT of species even if each species could only produce two species each. 2 to the 4,500 power potential species is a a VERY large number.

If this article is correct
Your interpretation of it is incorrect. It is about changes in size that stick. Few changes that stick are merely size. I already pointed out the size is not something that does stick very often.

the earth must be older than the universe -- and obvious impossibility
So you should have checked your numbers since they were obviously wrong.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2011
No, not by definition. By definition, evolution occurs at reproduction.
Which is my point so you are wrong when you say no.

It's like a batch reactor.
No.

This is why you always find well adapted species and never some brand of intermediate.
Crap. We see LOTS of badly adapted species. Those are the ones on the edge of extinction. IF you were correct there would be no such thing.

The reason we don't see AT PRESENT any intermediates is because intermediate is BETWEEN now and the future. All species are intermediates in that sense. They are intermediate between what they were and what they will become. For instance the flying squirrel is a intermediate between non-flying squirrels and perhaps a new line of bats. There are presently two lines of bats. By your standards they are the same KIND yet they came from two different sources. Fruit bats from Primates and perhaps rodents for the others but definitely not primates.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2011
Simply because we do not understand why one gene turns on while 3 others turn off, does not mean it is random.
Who claimed it was? However mutations are random.

And if there are no limits of morphological change over time
There are. Energy and resources are limits.

then why should there be limits on the amount of variation that can occur at one reproduction event?
Survival is the limit. Whole chromosomes can be duplicated by accident BUT that is rare and likely to result in failure to survive in most instances for animals. Not so much for plants.

Mutations are errors in the code, corruption.
No. Error yes corruption no.

The genes attempt to minimize and compensate in response.
Horse manure. Unless of course you can show the mechanism you are invoking to do that. No one has found such a mechanism.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2011
They are never beneficial and in nature, quickly selected out
Bullshit again. More magical thinking. There is NOTHING to stop them from being beneficial unless you invoke magic. Which is what you are doing.

Accumulation isn't needed over millions of years
Nevertheless it occurs.

The right genes can turn on and off and rearrange within just a few generations,
Magic. There is no evidence to support that or mechanism to drive it. You make that claim based on your religion alone.

and they must or species go extinct.
Horse manure. You shovel a lot of it. You and Bandini fertilizer.

Just claiming things without a shred of evidence is not going to make the real facts go away.

We see mutations occur. Some ARE beneficial but it is the bad ones that show up clearly. A slightly more efficient enzyme does not stand out by killing off its owner so there is no financial reason for looking for them. Of course when one is found you will just claim it was there by magic.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2011
Sickle cell anemia IS a beneficial mutation. For those with one copy of it. Yet you would claim some sort of god is responsible for it. That would be a psycho god since those with two copies die. So your god must be remarkably incompetent. Or it is just a mutation that works often enough that it is selected for instead of against.

Please explain sickle cell anemia in terms of your god. If you want to claim evolution is the act of your god you have a serious moral issue with that god. Well I sure would if it existed.

Ethelred
hush1
not rated yet Sep 01, 2011
Your allies are logic, the analytic and patience. And your explanatory powers extend to the psychological driftwood commentators exhibit within their own comments and towards each other. You simply point that out. And there is never a shortage of words that you are alleged to have said that somehow never work to your advantage. lol
breadhead
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2011
Did nobody notice the "Tree of life" data in the chart? How reliable is that information? For that matter, the fossil data? Since fossils are no more than ~6000 years old anyway.
The article is based on mostly ficticous information.
What qualifies one to be a scientist? Did your hero, Darwin have a degree in science?
breadhead
1 / 5 (2) Sep 02, 2011
This link may help explain sickle cell anemia. http://creation.c...volution (Since I am not an expert on the subject).
hush1
not rated yet Sep 02, 2011
Thks for the link. "Polymerization" of hemoglobin personally interested me the most. Why? This is why:
http://www.physor...ilt.html

In this scenario formins is the agent use to polymerize actin.

In sickle cells valin is the agent use to "polymerize" (glue together/stick together)hemoglobin molecules to form long molecular chains pressing against the walls of blood cells to distort into the famous sickle shape. I am only familiar with point mutation. The following animation pulls no punches - assumed is only basics in chemistry and biology:

http://www.youtub...c3hUhhyc
You only have to understand every term in it's entirely.
A surreal potpourri of entertainment and state-of-art frontier knowledge of sickle cell research.

No expertise needed.
And here the foremost frontier knowledge of sickle cell and malaria research:
http://www.news-m...%29.aspx
Check 'further reading' also.
hush1
not rated yet Sep 02, 2011
The researchers had a chance to apply the Price equation.
From a Price equation prospective, their assertions become theoretically impenetrable. Hindsight is 20/20.
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 03, 2011
Did nobody notice the "Tree of life" data in the chart? How reliable is that information?
Sorry I don't even know what they were using for that. I don't find the concept behind the study reliable. Size can change too easily.

For that matter, the fossil data?
Depends on the fossils they used.

Since fossils are no more than ~6000 years old anyway.
That is nonsense. You can't even get a fully lithified fossil in that length of time. Most human fossils are not lithified. Of course they may not have been using lithified fossils. Your religious beliefs simply are not compatible with reality.

The article is based on mostly ficticous information.
Not likely.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 03, 2011
What qualifies one to be a scientist?
Depends when you are talking about. These days you usually need a PhD but anyone can do real science in some areas of study. For instance amateurs find most of the comets. Early on it was kind of like programming was at the beginning. There was no way to get a degree in programming till there were computers to program.

Did your hero, Darwin have a degree in science?
Thank you for that straight line. Darwin was a divinity student.

At that time most scientists were amateurs without actual degrees. He earned his reputation by writing strong papers with excellent research. He was famous from the Beagle expedition as well. He got the job because he had the money needed to finance his work and live without any real pay AND he had done strong work in biology in college. He found he was much more interested in biology than theology. His adviser suggested he take the job. His adviser was some high mucky muck in the Church of England.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 03, 2011
Sickle-cell anemia does not prove evolution
No. But it is inexplicable in a Universe created by a all knowing perfect god. And I seriously doubt that sixth graders have asked that question. Yes I do think he lied.

to have raised evolution from theory to established fact.
That alone shows he doesn't know what he is talking about. Evolution is theory to explain real facts. It is a fact that the world is billions of years old as we have many lines of evidence that support that. It is a fact that species have changed over time. Natural Selection is a theory that explains that.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 03, 2011
A scientific theory that tackles origins must of necessity find that it is out of its depth.
More bullshit. Evolution does NOT tackle the origin of life. It does explain, quite well, the origin of SPECIES. And they were clearly trying to bring abiogenesis without admitting they were doing it since it is a no no on many Creationists to do that. Answers In Genesis apparently got tired of being embarrassed by trying to lie that way.

Please note that the link does not in any way touch upon my question. It did nothing to explain the cause of sickle anemia BUT it is fully understandable in evolutionary theory.

Ethelred
hush1
not rated yet Sep 03, 2011
An interesting question poses itself:
Why is simply physics, for example gravity, not worthy of inclusion in a theory of evolution? Simply conjecture the variable called size is a dependent variable on the variable called gravity.

An alleged causative correlation between SDC and malaria* is being entertained by present day researchers.

*The solution to malaria is quite simple. Instead of injecting embryos with RNA creating sterile male offspring, PLAY THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER CARD instead. All mosquitoes are to be injected with RNA that alter the SYMMETRIC wing span. ALL resulting flight patterns are WAIT LOOPS. For predators easy prey. For potential victims of the eternally circling mosquitoes walking into their FLIGHT PARK PATTERN, I can not help you if you are this stupid. lol
hush1
not rated yet Sep 03, 2011
My recommendation: Do not seek FAA approval for this. :)
breadhead
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2011
You do not need a degree from some university to be a scientist. As you say, Darwin and others can choose to begin study on their own. Therefore, it becomes a matter of faith, when there is no proof to back up any scientists conjecture.
Faith is as simple as believing something is true. Especially when it comes to evolutionism. Your definition of evolution must tackle chemical - how elements evolved, planetary - galaxy formation, life - how life arose from non living chemicals. These and other foundations of the world around us. Where did matter come from? Either it formed itself, always has been here, or outside force, 'God' created it. Why isn't time, gravity, magnetism, speed of light, etc, evolving? Or are they? You appear to avoid these topics by narrowing your definition of evolution.
hush1
not rated yet Sep 14, 2011
Evolution of gravity is too broad:
http://www.ncbi.n...15173628
Biology of size and gravity - a paper from the year 2004.
This paper and cited references narrow the definition of evolution to forms of matter labeled life.

TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Sep 14, 2011
You do not need a degree from some university to be a scientist. As you say, Darwin and others can choose to begin study on their own. Therefore, it becomes a matter of faith, when there is no proof to back up any scientists conjecture.
Back in darwins time it was a little easier to make substantial contributions in science without formal training. But even then one had to have the ability to be objective and to learn a great deal.

You dont seem to possess either of those qualities. You dont even know the proper usage of the word 'proof' in the scientific sense.

I suggest you look it up. Try GOOGLE.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Sep 15, 2011
planetary - galaxy formation, life - how life arose from non living chemicals.

That is not (and never was) part of the theory of evolution.

Evolution is science of adaptation of life by selection, mutation and other systemic factors that produce change from one generation to the next.

The origin of life is another question entirely. (Note that Darwin's book is called "On the Origin of SPECIES" - not "On the Origin of LIFE")

Why isn't time, gravity, magnetism, speed of light, etc, evolving? Or are they? You appear to avoid these topics by narrowing your definition of evolution.

I think you have inappropriately extended the definition of the word 'evolution' to areas where they don't apply (or only in a very loosely analogous way.)

You come off like someone asking: "Why do fired employees not burn?"
hush1
not rated yet Sep 15, 2011
You come off like someone asking: "Why do fired employees not burn?" - AP


lol
Arson is not legal? The employee did not pay taxes? So even if fired employees did burn, fire departments can't put out fires without tax support?

Anyway, I adhere to your interpretation:
Evolution's definition was overextended.
breadhead
1 / 5 (2) Sep 15, 2011
I have heard the word, "Evolution" used to describe all kinds of living, and non-living cases. "Computer technology is evolving", "science is evolving", etc. You say that life is the only thing to properly say, is "evolving"? Living bodies are composed of chemicals. The chemicals had to originally come together at some point in history. Is that not part of the "evolving" story? At some point life came from non-life. I would call that a miracle. How simpler elements became chemicals, to become life, is all part of your story. Your "evolution" depends on chemical changes to make new creatures, doesn't it? http://forum.rizo...g-fired. The origin of this term may be more accurate than you think.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2011
@doughbrain
I have heard the word, "Evolution" used to describe all kinds of living, and non-living cases. "Computer technology is evolving", "science is evolving", etc. You say that life is the only thing to properly say, is "evolving"?
Those things may be similar in some ways but quite different in others. That's the trouble with words - they're so easily misused by people to make others think they know what they're talking about when actually they only think they do, because they can use WORDS.

Like hush1 for instance who likes to use words like pretty-colored Lego blocks to make little grottos and garages.

The ways you use the word evolution indicate you do not understand biological evolution. It's like conflating christian science with science. I do suspect some unfortunate religionist influence in your argument, am I right? Religious thinking is NOT thinking. It is refusing to think on the threat of eternal damnation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Sep 15, 2011
And gazebos.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Sep 15, 2011
I have heard the word, "Evolution" used to describe all kinds of living, and non-living cases. "Computer technology is evolving", "science is evolving", etc.

In those contexts the word 'evolution' simply is used as a shorthand of saying: 'change over time'.

Religions can be said to 'evolve'. Meaning: they change to fit the time (or die out). But do religions have genes? Do they suffer random mutation or genetic drift? One shouldn't take analogies too far or too literal (that's why they're analogies - not mappings).

At some point life came from non-life. I would call that a miracle.

You may. But then you have to tell us what is so miraculous about it (and why exactly a physical/chemical process could not lead in the same result). You also have to give a good definition of 'life' which is a bit tricky with early 'life'forms.

hush1
not rated yet Sep 15, 2011
Like hush1 for instance who likes to use words like pretty-colored Lego blocks to make little grottos and garages. - Oh


lol

The play of all children of all ages is serious -
dead serious.
The consequences of play determine the age of the child.
The younger the child, the fewer the lethal casualties.

Besides, anyone familiar with your commentary knows you projecting again. ;)
hush1
not rated yet Sep 15, 2011
"...knows you ARE projecting again."
(Typo correction/insertion in CAPS)
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2011
Just claiming things without a shred of evidence is not going to make the real facts go away.


Ethelred, you just shouting "Magic", without any backing evidence against my points. I haven't brought up religion once, so why do you resort to it or magic? I've seen you argue much better without the rabbit trails.

We see LOTS of badly adapted species. Those are the ones on the edge of extinction


Yes, species can go extinct when the pressure applied exceeds their ability to reproduce. All the more reason that evolution must occur rapidly and accurately. They must remain a well adapted species for "bad" species will not be able to survive.

Unless of course you can show the mechanism you are invoking to do that. No one has found such a mechanism.>>


When one loses or is born without eyesight, his hearing, smell, and touch can be heightened. Likewise, the genetic code attempts to repair error, or to compensate. Your immune system does similar against a cold.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2011
Sickle cell anemia IS a beneficial mutation. For those with one copy of it.


Doing nothing, until obtaining two copies, doesn't mean one copy is beneficial. Further, even if one copy provides malaria immunity, that may only be a correlation not necessarily causation. You also wouldnt "select" for one copy of sickle cell, because you'd greatly increase the risk of receiving two copies.

That would be a psycho god since those with two copies die.


Ad hominem's against a god isn't a point of argument in science.

So your god must be remarkably incompetent. Or it is just a mutation that works often enough that it is selected for instead of against.


Why would a universe existing without a god, create a genetic code that could allow for error? If it's laws were simply random, it would not be able to stand. It would never move past the inorganic to organic.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2011
But it is inexplicable in a Universe created by a all knowing perfect god


Is it? Would you prefer to be automatons, just robots? Does this Biblical God you refer to, does that story not discuss the fall of man, and this world, and that it has altered the initial physical conditions to be subject to degradation and death?
Does it not go on to state that he subjected his own Son to being human, to die to save them?

Is it not possible, that God considering you assert he created the universe in this case, knows far more what his plan is and will accomplish than you do, who sees in part?

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2011
Evolution is theory to explain real facts. It is a fact that the world is billions of years old as we have many lines of evidence that support that. It is a fact that species have changed over time. Natural Selection is a theory that explains that.>>


It doesn't prove billions of years. It proves that there is variation at reproduction up to an extent. Natural selection is not evolution. Nothing evolves under it. It only weeds out and selects the best species for a given environment, thus reducing information that can be considered at reproduction.

Which is why, something like a sickle cell mutation gets weeded out to ineffectiveness or it will destroy the species. You really have only presented a fine example of the genetic code compensating against sickle cell.
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 27, 2011
Ethelred, you just shouting "Magic", without any backing evidence against my points.
No. I did no such thing. Go ahead and show it if you think so. And that was a LONG time for a reply. Long enough that it looks like you don't me to have time for a response. You pulled that once before.

I haven't brought up religion once, so why do you resort to it or magic?
I didn't resort to magic. And you did use religion. You just didn't admit to it.

I've seen you argue much better without the rabbit trails.
It took you nearly a month to reply so I guess that statement is also false.

Yes, species can go extinct when the pressure applied exceeds their ability to reproduce.
Or to adapt in time. or by adaptation they become a different species and their ancestor species dies out.

All the more reason that evolution must occur rapidly and accurately.
No. There is no measure of accuracy except survival.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 27, 2011
The amount of biological change over time needed is dependent on the amount of environmental pressure. A one percent decrease in population per generation will wipe out a species in a geologically short period of time BUT there is plenty of time for mutations to occur. Most organism have some. YOU most likely have some. Nearly everyone does.

They must remain a well adapted species
No. Well adapted species don't exist over the long term as the environment changes over time. All species that survive over long periods of time have undergone some adaptation, yes even the alleged living fossils have undergone some evolution. Mostly however they lost territory.

for "bad" species will not be able to survive.
There are no bad species. Only those that doing poorly. If those species fail to accumulate enough useful mutations they will go extinct. Over time. Few species that spread over large areas have been wiped out quickly except after massive environmental change.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 27, 2011
Under those conditions the survivors already had the tools needed to survive the new conditions. In most cases those species were not particularly successful prior to the disaster.

When one loses or is born without eyesight, his hearing, smell, and touch can be heightened.
That is training not a biological change that can be inherited.

Likewise, the genetic code attempts to repair error, or to compensate.
Repair damage yes. It can't repair all kinds of damage AND it can't compensate at all. That is what I was calling magic. Without a mechanism for what you are claiming magic is required. There is no such mechanism. You took weeks to reply and you didn't find anything that changed anything. You have just made another sullen Creationist post whining about my pointing out your errors.

Your immune system does similar against a cold.
My immune system DOES NOT CHANGE MY DNA. Thus it cannot be inherited.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 27, 2011
Go get a book on biology that covers DNA and the way it is transcribed. The ONLY thing that engages in the insertion of DNA is a retro virus and they don't do that for the benefit of the species they are infecting. ONLY retro virus have Reverse Transcriptase. We do not except when infected with such and this isn't ours it's the viruses.

You ARE invoking magical change and you doing so to support your religion. There is nothing biological to support your statement. You could only have made to support your religious beliefs and I would have to be a total idiot to not understand that it was religion that you were thinking with.

Now about that last time you took a month. You said the Flood occurred around 2800 BC which is the earliest claim I have ever seen but it still doesn't work. The Egyptians and the Sumerians were both writing by then. I think the Chinese might have been as well.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 27, 2011
None of the cultures of the time were suddenly all drowned and then replaced by entirely different cultures a few hundred years later. There is no evidence for a world wide flood covering the highest mountain EVER much less during written human history.

How the heck do you continue to believe in a Great Flood that YOU proved didn't happen? True it clearly never happened and I sure needed no new evidence BUT YOU learned it yourself. What did you do to brainwash yourself out accepting the reality that the Bible is wrong on the Flood?

Please do not take weeks to respond or I will have to choose another thread to, one convenient for me not you, to reply in. There is a time limit on these. 2 months and they close.

Doing nothing, until obtaining two copies, doesn't mean one copy is beneficial.
Clearly you don't know it works. It ONLY helps with ONE copy. Two copies kills.

Further, even if one copy provides malaria immunity
It does>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 27, 2011
that may only be a correlation not necessarily causation.
that may only be a correlation not necessarily causation.
It IS the cause. The change is understood. It is a one point mutation that interferes with the parasites ability to infect the cell and then keep it out of the spleen. I didn't choose that mutation for the hell of it. It IS understood quite well.

You also wouldnt "select" for one copy of sickle cell, because you'd greatly increase the risk of receiving two copies
I don't. The environment does. Those with two DIE. Those with one survive and reproduce. Those with none are likely to get malaria. Again, this is well understood.

Ad hominem's against a god isn't a point of argument in science
So you think god that did that wouldn't be a psycho? That was not an attack on a god. It was attack on a stupid idea that requires that YOU believe in a god that would do such a thing. A thing that if it was human you would call a psycho.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 27, 2011
You are ignoring the science so I wanted to make it very clear just what kind of god there would have to be for that god to do something that is that evil. It would be evil to intentionally painfully kill 25 percent of the children of parents with one copy each of the mutation that made it possible for them to survive and reproduce.

Why would a universe existing without a god, create a genetic code that could allow for error?
There is no why. There is only survival or death. The universe did not create a code. The process of evolution produced chemistry that we call a code. If that code should never have errors in some species but other species could have errors then the species that have the 'errors' would over time evolve to the point that the static species could no longer compete.

If it's laws were simply random,
They are not fully random. The laws MUST support life. That puts a limit on what the laws can be for THIS universe.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 27, 2011
It would never move past the inorganic to organic.
True but we don't live in such a Universe. Nothing is ever going to live in such a universe thus those universes will never be noticed by anything.

Is it?
Yes. Go ahead and try to explain Sickle Cell anemia. You are the one claiming a perfect god is responsible for that nasty bit of biology. I say it is a bad break. YOU are the one a god is responsible. I am only pointing that such a god would be called psychotic if it was held to human standards of morality.

Would you prefer to be automatons, just robots?
Sorry but that isn't involved here. I was talking about Sickle Cell anemia.

Does this Biblical God you refer to
The one you believe in.

does that story not discuss the fall of man,
It blames man for the gods actions yes.

and that it has altered the initial physical conditions to be subject to degradation and death?
Yes the Bible does accuse the god of such evil.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 27, 2011
It IS evil by human standards to do such a thing. Deliberately causing vast pain and suffering to the innocent offspring of Adam and Eve. Sure is nice to know that there is no such god.

Does it not go on to state that he subjected his own Son to being human, to die to save them?
Which makes no sense at all. Why is the god so incompetent or stubborn that it could not forgive. And why didn't it do so after the alleged human sacrifice? After all we have NOT been saved. We still die and often in horrid pain.

Is it not possible, that God considering you assert he created the universe
I never did such a thing. The Bible that YOU believe in does that.

knows far more what his plan is and will accomplish than you do
Well since we don't live in the Universe that the Bible describes there is no reason to believe in Jehovah and considering the vast incompetence and the appalling series of genocides the god is supposed to have engaged in I think that is a very good thing.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 27, 2011
I really don't think Jehovah would make a good neighbor. Kind of like living next to a volcano. You never know when it going to start killing people.

It doesn't prove billions of years.
True. The GEOLOGY and Astronomy does that.

It proves that there is variation at reproduction up to an extent.
No. Biology does that. Evolution is possible because of it but it does not prove that it happens. Comparative DNA testing does so.

Natural selection is not evolution.
Say that as many times as you feel the need. It still won't change reality. Evolution is by natural selection. Darwin didn't even use the word evolution in the first edition of The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

Nothing evolves under it.
So again you invoke magic.

It only weeds out and selects the best species for a given environment,
Along with mutation that means there MUST be evolution and it does NOT select species. It selects organisms.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 27, 2011
thus reducing information that can be considered at reproduction.
Thus reducing the amount of DNA that leads to early death. And there is NO consideration at reproduction. Again you have invoked magic.

Which is why, something like a sickle cell mutation gets weeded out to ineffectiveness or it will destroy the species.
Which is nonsense. It has been selected FOR because it improved the odds of reproduction for those that had one copy. Which makes sense as a unguided process. It makes NO sense for an allegedly perfect god to do intentionally. Unless of course you afflicted with a psychotic god.

Please keep in mind that I am NOT calling a real god a psycho. I am only pointing what the Bible really has it doing. You are the one that believes it is real. I am glad that it isn't.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 27, 2011
You really have only presented a fine example of the genetic code compensating against sickle cell.
No. I presented a REAL situation where Natural Selection did nothing to compensate for the simple reason that it does not ever compensate. It only selects in or out and there is no intellect involved. Early death selects out. Successful reproduction selects in. The pain and suffering is a side effect but since more people survive to reproduce with the mutation then without it is prevalent in areas with malaria.

Ethelred
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
http://www.physor...ool.html

A fine example of DNA repair and attempt to prevent mutations/disease.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
And that was a LONG time for a reply. Long enough that it looks like you don't me to have time for a response. You pulled that once before.


My apologies, but I haven't been on physorg much lately. I believe you could see my post history to see limited use all around the last month.

And you did use religion. You just didn't admit to it.


Because it wasn't related to the discussion. Evolution occurring at reproduction is a mechanism. It may be a mechanism established by God or not, but that's not relative to how it works and the study there of.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
There are no bad species. Only those that doing poorly. If those species fail to accumulate enough useful mutations they will go extinct. Over time. Few species that spread over large areas have been wiped out quickly except after massive environmental change.>>


So poorly is not equal to "bad"? They are just poor species?

Why are they not wiped out quickly and why is the rate acceptable in most cases that way? Because, as you note the changes are small. It is far easier to remain in that similar environment with little change, than it is to depend on mutations for survival.

If the change is slow, you can always move back to your comfort zone, much easier than you can, reproduce and hope for mutation.

We clearly see the limitations of evolution when faced with catastrophic changes to the environment. Why? Because the mechanism can't work as reproduction is limited in the least. The pressure far exceeds it and has no time for migration.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
Under those conditions the survivors already had the tools needed to survive the new conditions.


Because you've already mentioned the change is slow. Thus, they are already well equipped for a pretty consistent environment. New conditions that do not exceed reproductive capability do leave plenty of time to migrate or adapt, but because they are not substantial, they are never going to alter the species greatly even over vast amounts of time. There is no reason for it too, the species will just move before all that. It can't consider substantial new environments, for it doesn't LIVE in them.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
Repair damage yes. It can't repair all kinds of damage AND it can't compensate at all. That is what I was calling magic.


Repairing is compensating. You are trying to fix or adjust to an error in the code. There is no magic, so any physical repair must be squarely do to our genetic structure. I don't invoke magic here. The amazing ability of DNA to minimize damage is remarkable. The immune system that knows what to do because of genetic encoding is amazing.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
You are ignoring the science so I wanted to make it very clear just what kind of god there would have to be for that god to do something that is that evil.


Where have I ignored science? That's all I've been discussing. We've only been discussing the limitations and capabilities of evolution verses rate, not any denial of variation at reproduction.

Yes. Go ahead and try to explain Sickle Cell anemia. You are the one claiming a perfect god is responsible for that nasty bit of biology.


I thought you said it was beneficial mutation?

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
Along with mutation that means there MUST be evolution and it does NOT select species. It selects organisms


Selection, kills. Natural selection, only eliminates possibilities. Evolution occurs with the variation at reproduction from the given codes at the time of reproduction. There is no evolving outside of reproduction. This is all I'm distinguishing. You have trouble with the very definitions of the terms it seems. Selection is part of the process, I agree, but it does not do any "evolving" itself.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
Which makes no sense at all. Why is the god so incompetent or stubborn that it could not forgive. And why didn't it do so after the alleged human sacrifice? After all we have NOT been saved. We still die and often in horrid pain.


Forgiveness is not the excuse of wrong, evil, or sin. When someone hurts you, and you forgive them, it's never about liking what they did. It is loving them despite what they did.

This is why Christ would be necessary, if God wanted to save man for sin can't be excused, but it can be forgiven. And not just forgiven, but Christ to take the place of what is due. Temporal pain sucks, but we do not know the weight of eternity to put it on a proper scale. We only see in part.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
It IS evil by human standards to do such a thing. Deliberately causing vast pain and suffering to the innocent offspring of Adam and Eve. Sure is nice to know that there is no such god.


The Bible, clearly describes the paradox that man is responsible for his sin, yet God is sovereign. Adam and Eve's children, aren't innocent. If God had man's idea of morality he would not be God. Why should God be subject to someone who sees in part and is just mortal? Biblical God or other.

Lewis would describe the very nature of a man with free will, logically implies the possibility of rejecting God. If you were just an automaton, you would hate God for forced obedience. Instead, he's given the option to his high creations, yet evil in the end, can not triumph for He is also sovereign. He wouldn't be much of a God either, if evil can win.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2011
Please keep in mind that I am NOT calling a real god a psycho. I am only pointing what the Bible really has it doing. You are the one that believes it is real. I am glad that it isn't.>>


Sure, but your just forcing god to be someone you can entirely understand. Do we even understand ourselves that well?

Note, I make no excuse that God created the world, set the laws we learn about, that he allows sin to be possible. That he decides life and death ultimately.

I would have it no other way though. What real god should ever be subject to his creation? To be judged by us? You seek to place man in a godship and create a dependent out of God.

That's a logical fallacy against the very nature of anything we wish to call god.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2011
Also, as I said, whether God established the laws we learn in science, or whether they just must be because they are here now, as you present, it's irrelative to discussing the mechanisms at work, now.

If you want me to get biblical on evolution, I see it asa wonderful post flood mechanism for repopulation of diversity. Also, it is an obvious inclusion from the start, considering Adam and Eve didn't produce clones of Adam in Seth and Cain, or any other children. They were variations at reproduction.

True. The GEOLOGY and Astronomy does that.


Radioactivity on earth is largely a result of the Flood. Geological time is misleading as the rates were far greater during that event.

And for Astronomy, we are just as possibly watching the stars in slow mo.

Billions of years aren't necessary. Nor would you even need to invoke God in their absence, if that makes you feel better.
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 28, 2011
A fine example of DNA repair and attempt to prevent mutations/disease
It's repair not an attempt to stop a disease. The repair processes can only stop mutations that are detectable via the redundancy in the DNA. The repair process doesn't have a clue as what the changes would do if not repair nor can it detect all changes.

Because it wasn't related to the discussion
It is the ENTIRETY of the discussion. Nothing you have said was based on real biology. Its all an attempt to patch over the flaws in your religious beliefs.

Because it wasn't related to the discussion
Yes. Or rather it is part of the process of Natural Selection. If was of divine origin the good/bad ratio would be different UNLESS the god just liked to see a lot needless death. Most mutations result in lower reproduction rates or death.

mechanism established by God or not
Not by any remotely competent god.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 28, 2011
So poorly is not equal to "bad"? They are just poor species
Bad was your term. It isn't mine. Species with decreasing population aren't doing well. In some species population growth rates are cyclical so one or even a few down years do not necessarily mean the species is doing poorly. A down century is a species that is doing poorly. This does not mean that the species will go extinct in all cases. Some just lose a lot of territory.

why is the rate acceptable in most cases that way?
If they aren't wiped out they don't go extinct. Acceptable by who? Evolution is a process, there is no acceptable just survival. Now if a god is involved that would be different. The we could measure the morals of the god. Any god that did things in a way that looked exactly like a god wasn't involved, and there is no sign of god being involved, would not be considered moral by human standards.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 28, 2011
than it is to depend on mutations for survival.
It is changes in the environment that makes it possible for mutation have a higher probability of increasing survival rates. Changes in the environment INCLUDES changes in other species. That is what drives co-evolution.

If the change is slow, you can always move back to your comfort zone,
By the mutations being killed off by the environment OR by adapting to the new environment through mutations that are selected FOR by the new environment.

The pressure far exceeds it and has no time for migration.
That is why there have been mass extinctions. If a beneficent god was involved there would be no mass extinctions. Unless it was incompetent.

Because you've already mentioned the change is slow
I did no such thing. Change is often fast. Especially after a mass extinction as the decrease in competition allows a wider range of successful mutations since there is less to kill of the mutated offspring.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 28, 2011
well equipped for a pretty consistent environment
Environments are only consistent for limited times. Both the climate and other species change.

New conditions that do not exceed reproductive capability do leave plenty of time to migrate or adapt,
Not true. The word EXCEED is the error. Any decrease in the rate of reproduction will change the environment for other species and for the species that is decreasing. Change in the environment drives Natural Selection.

the species will just move before all that.
Only self-conscious species that are aware of the change would do that. The rest 'move' by dieing faster in one are and reproducing faster in another. That change in reproduction rates will drive Natural Selection.

You seem to no clue as the process of Natural Selection. It is simple.

Changes that increase the rate of reproduction will increase in the population.

Changes that decrease the rate of reproduction will decrease in the population.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 28, 2011
There no is intelligence or choice involved in this. It is inherent in the differential rates of reproduction. All that is needed is time and there has been rather a lot of time.

Repairing is compensating
It is using redundancy to SOMETIMES return the DNA back to where it was before the damage. Compensation requires a conscious effort.

You are trying to fix or adjust to an error in the code
No. It is just CHEMISTRY. There is no try. And there is no adjust. Its just a chemical process that can detect SOME kinds of change due to the redundancy in the DNA. The redundancy is from the pairing of the pairing of the double helix. If a BOTH halves of a pair are lost there will be no repair. To repair that would require magic.

amazing ability of DNA to minimize damage is remarkable
Its just chemistry and MINIMIZE is the key word there. It cannot repair all damage. Thus mutation occur AND there are errors in the copying process that cannot be detected either.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 28, 2011
The immune system that knows what to do because of genetic encoding is amazing
The immune system has nothing to do with the repair process. The repair process is an intra cell mechanism. The immune system is an inter cell process. All the immune system can do is destroy cells that are out of control. It does NOT repair them and it has nothing to with sperm or egg cells.

Where have I ignored science?
Pretty much in every single sentence.

not any denial of variation at reproduction
You have been invoking intelligent change and ignoring the only thing that gives change a direction, Natural Selection.

I thought you said it was beneficial mutation?
I said that it increases the rate of reproduction for those that have ONE copy. It causes painful death for those with two. I don't call that beneficial in the sense that any competent god that inflicted that on humans would have to be evil. Sure would be evil if a human did it.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 28, 2011
Selection, kills
Often but not always, a decrease in the rate of reproduction gets the same result over a longer period of time, AND it the death that is the selection process, not the other way around.

Natural selection, only eliminates possibilities
No. It eliminates ACTUALITIES not possibilities. It only eliminates FAILED actualities with the failure due to a decrease in the chances of reproduction.

Evolution occurs with the variation at reproduction from the given codes at the time of reproduction.
No. Evolution occurs with the change in the reproduction rates do the mutations in the DNA OR due to changes the environment that makes already existing DNA counterproductive.

There is no evolving outside of reproduction.
No. There is no CHANGE in and individuals reproductive DNA outside of the time of reproductions. The selection process is where the random changes either fail or succeed by reproducing.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 28, 2011
This is all I'm distinguishing.
You are ignoring the selection process and pretending that the mutations are not random while ignoring what it would mean if a god was intentionally making random changes that need a selection process via death or failure to reproduce to decide which were the good ones.

Evolution by Natural Selection has no morals. Your god is supposed the source of morals. True Jehovah would be immoral if it had done the things the Bible has it doing but that is your cross to bear as you believe in it. I don't expect behavior out a non-conscious chemical process. I would expect it out of a god. True no myth has a moral god but I have yet to see one that fits reality anyway.

Selection is part of the process, I agree, but it does not do any "evolving" itse
Wrong. It gives direction to the process. Without selection it would be a random walk.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 28, 2011
Forgiveness is not the excuse of wrong, evil, or sin
I said we still die and often painfully . What part of 'still die' is hard to comprehend?

Where is the forgiveness? Where is NEED for a human sacrifice to forgive? Why did you pretend I didn't ask that and dealt with things I did not say?

This is why Christ would be necessary, if God wanted to save man for sin can't be excused, but it can be forgiven
Again that makes NO SENSE. If a god can't forgive without a human sacrifice it is just plain insane.

but Christ to take the place of what is due.
A competent god would simply forgive.

but we do not know the weight of eternity to put it on a proper scale.
We have no evidence for that. Just a bunch of fallible humans, you for instance, claiming that.

We only see in part
That is the gods fault then. A god that punishes for it's incompetence.

The Bible, clearly describes the paradox that man is responsible for his sin, yet God is sovereign.
>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 28, 2011
That is just a rationalization of stupid ideas. It isn't a paradox it is a contradiction.

Adam and Eve's children, aren't innocent.
So then they were born evil? They never existed but you seem to think they were inherently evil and thus you are claiming, unknowingly, that your god is quite simply incompetent.

If God had man's idea of morality he would not be God
But according to the Bible we have NO morals without except through the god. You contradicted yourself again.

Why should God be subject to someone who sees in part and is just mortal?
Because I am an American and I believe in self governance. I don't think I should be governed by a psycho god with no morals.

Lewis would describe the very nature of a man with free will, logically implies the possibility of rejecting God.
Or simply noticing that there is none. I cannot reject what does not exist.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 28, 2011
you would hate God for forced obedience
Only if the god decreed that. Without free will the god would have controlled the hate. You aren't thinking this through.

, yet evil in the end, can not triumph for He is also sovereign
Unless of course he is evil. And the Bible does not show us a beneficent god.

He wouldn't be much of a God either, if evil can win
It wins frequently. So I guess Jehovah isn't much of a god. Did a lot evil as well.

Sure, but your just forcing god to be someone you can entirely understand.
No. I am pointing out that the god you believe in is immoral or incompetent or both.

What real god should ever be subject to his creation? To be judged by us?
First you must have a real god. You don't have one. Second if I have free will such a god will be judged. One way or the other. Worship or revile. Me I just point out that we don't live in the world the Bible describes.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 28, 2011
You seek to place man in a godship and create a dependent out of God.
I did no such thing. I am pointing out:

A We do NOT live in a world that matches the Bible.

B You are worshipping a god that is both incompetent and immoral if it existed which it does not.

That's a logical fallacy against the very nature of anything we wish to call god
That is nonsense. And why do you wish to call something the Bible shows as immoral and incompetent a god? Why do you wish we actually lived in such world when the world and the Bible are do not fit?

it's irrelative to discussing the mechanisms at work, now.
Except you are not doing that. You are trying to change the mechanisms to one with a god.

I see it asa wonderful post flood mechanism for repopulation of diversity.
Funny how you are ignoring the fact that there was no Flood. You proved it yourself and then ignored the proof.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 28, 2011
Also, it is an obvious inclusion from the start, considering Adam and Eve didn't produce clones of Adam in Seth and Cain, or any other children.
Of course not. None of them existed. The evidence is overwhelming to all but the most tightly shuttered mind.

Radioactivity on earth is largely a result of the Flood.
Nonsense. Water does not effect radioactivity.

Geological time is misleading as the rates were far greater during that event.
That non event would have killed anyone in a boat and would have left evidence that does not exist.

And for Astronomy, we are just as possibly watching the stars in slow mo.
So you are claiming that Jehovah is lying to us with the stars and light.

Billions of years aren't necessary
They occurred anyway. The evidence is clear.>>
Ethelred
not rated yet Sep 28, 2011
Nor would you even need to invoke God in their absence, if that makes you feel better.
Sure would have to invoke a god. But the billions of years did occur and the Flood did not so no god is needed to explain reality.

The thing is you ARE invoking god frequently in this you just don't admit it.

Just why is it you believe the Bible is real when all the evidence is to the contrary and you only have the word of men to claim that the Bible is the word of a god?

And you did prove that the Flood did not occur when you showed the Bible had it happen in 2800 BC. Funny how you are ignoring that.

Ethelred
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
The repair process doesn't have a clue as what the changes would do if not repair nor can it detect all changes.


Then how could it ever consider slowly over time transitioning from dinosaur to bird? If it can't do something so simple as account for detrimental diseases developing, how will it ever consider an environment it is not apart of?

And you ignored the article frankly, it specifically mentions repair against mutations in order to prevent disease.

I quote:
In so doing, it changes the genetic program inside the cell and may cause dangerous mutations resulting in disease.
To ensure the integrity of the genetic material, cells are equipped with a "molecular toolkit" for repairing DNA damage.


Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
Bad was your term. It isn't mine. Species with decreasing population aren't doing well. In some species population growth rates are cyclical so one or even a few down years do not necessarily mean the species is doing poorly. A down century is a species that is doing poorly. This does not mean that the species will go extinct in all cases. Some just lose a lot of territory.


Do me a favor. Hit control F, and type in the word "bad". It will appear about 20 times including this post. The first person was antialias...Guess who the 2nd person is that mentions it or the term "badly"? YOU.

I quote:
Crap. We see LOTS of badly adapted species.


And then, I reused your term with quotes "bad", as I had disagreed that there are any bad species.

You then say this:
There are no bad species. Only those that doing poorly.


So which is it? Can you be consistent?
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011


No. There is no CHANGE in and individuals reproductive DNA outside of the time of reproductions. The selection process is where the random changes either fail or succeed by reproducing.


I agree with this. This is why, eons of time, isn't necessary.

If the mutation exists that can carry a population onward, due to environmental change, and has the time to reproduce and reselects that benefit, the species will continue on.

It's not a function of time. It's a function of what is available genetically at the time of reproduction. It does not consider how long the species has been around nor how many will be in the future.

There is not a conscious decision by the DNA to recognize a mutation as beneficial. It's still only a possible selection to continue forward.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
You are ignoring the selection process and pretending that the mutations are not random while ignoring what it would mean if a god was intentionally making random changes that need a selection process via death or failure to reproduce to decide which were the good ones.


I am not ignoring it at all. And I have placed no divine interference on it's mechanism to select.

I do not expect gravity to ignore someone jumping off a building, simply because the result is bad, nor do I expect God to turn it off temporarily.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
Wrong. It gives direction to the process. Without selection it would be a random walk.>>


Selection doesn't guarantee the passing of a trait or mutation. A species that survives because of an already existing mutation, still has to reproduce that in it's next offspring. That's not a given. It's a possibility. If it has no conscious understanding of the need for it, nor can it guess at the new change in the environment, it is merely chance that it passes it on.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
What part of 'still die' is hard to comprehend?

Where is the forgiveness? Where is NEED for a human sacrifice to forgive? Why did you pretend I didn't ask that and dealt with things I did not say?


My apologies if I didn't answer your questions well at first here. I focused on the idea of forgiveness, while not grasping the over arching question you were making, "Why this way?"

Why not this way? If you do not create man, we never exist at all. If Adam screws up, restarting again, he'll just do the same thing again. If he just forgives, sin/death is not conquered, we would just live and then perish apart from him.

Biblically, there is only 1 way. How do we know that? Because Christ asks just as much before he goes to the cross.
"And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."

He's not asking not to save man, he's asking for another way. Cont..
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
God is attesting to that fact that this was the only way.

It is the only way that brings glory to his Son, that conquers sin/death once and for all, and that man can have eternal fellowship for those who want to actually be with him.

God didnt just forgive. He goes way beyond that.

What Christ did, is like going up to a man who just murdered your whole family, and not just saying you forgive him, but offering not only to take his punishment, but to give him your wealth and make him apart of your family as well.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
Second if I have free will such a god will be judged.

You seek to place man in a godship and create a dependent out of God.

I did no such thing. I am pointing out


But you just did do that. If you wish to judge God, he is therefore subservient to you. His outcome is dependent upon you.

It is logical fallacy to expect any god to give up his authority as god, in order to be subject to a non-god.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011


You are trying to change the mechanisms to one with a god.


Are you trying to change them to one without a god?

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
"Nonsense. Water does not effect radioactivity."

I said it was a result of the Flood. I didn't say water effects radioactivity. And by the way, I've never said 2800 bc...don't know where you grabbed that from, but it's more projection. Most creationists including myself hang around the 2300-2350 mark. The Flood wasn't just rainfall, or magically appearing water, nor was water the only issue. It was major catastrophe, with tidal pumped water from confined subterranean below the crust, erupting. That energy was enormous, and part of it translated into producing the earth's radioactive crust.

That non event would have killed anyone in a boat and would have left evidence that does not exist.


How? The boat just has to float. It doesn't have to sail anywhere.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
So you are claiming that Jehovah is lying to us with the stars and light.


Not at all. Stars and light, are mostly relative to the frame of reference.

You can easily test if we are watching in slow mo. Measure the orbits of binary stars in the Milky Way, if they have a larger orbit the farther away from earth, then we are watching in slow mo.

The speed of light will have been decreasing. Orbital clocks will reveal that, but an atomic clock (which is what we've used since the 60s) will continue to degrade in accordance with the speed of light, thus, it doesn't show the degrade.

It would be why, far away galaxies and closer galaxies look remarkably similar.

You don't need missing dark mass and energy, when doing away with billions of years can solve just about every problem.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
The thing is you ARE invoking god frequently in this you just don't admit it.


I have only discussed God in response to your invoking. You mentioned god 9 times before myself.

Just why is it you believe the Bible is real when all the evidence is to the contrary and you only have the word of men to claim that the Bible is the word of a god?


From a science stand point, Occam's razor.

From a religious stand point, there is no greater love than what Christ gave. His story alone, is worth considering. No other religion comes close.

Why should I take the word of just men, only in the last ~150 years, most of whom, don't like god to begin with?

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
And you did prove that the Flood did not occur when you showed the Bible had it happen in 2800 BC. Funny how you are ignoring that.


Brevity is part of the problem on a forum like this. One can not prove the Flood any more than one can prove abiogensis. We were not there.

I can lay out the initial conditions, and the resulting mechanisms and processes that occurred based on the biblical description. Whether or not that was the initial conditions, is still faith. Same way, with any other attempts from science to recreate the past. We don't really attempt to prove, so much as we do attempt to show it was possible.

Initial assumption based on the bible. About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the entire earths surface. At thousands of locations, the chambers sagging ceiling pressed against the chambers floor. These extensive, solid contacts will be called pillars. Granite above, basalt below.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
Aside from that assumption based on biblical description, the rest is merely physics and chemistry. Tidal pumping occurs over the 1500 years prior to the flood. High temp, high pressures, results in super critical water, dissolving vast amounts of sediment, and weakening the crust. Crust cracks, water explodes out. Pillars start collapsing, water hammers pound away. Mechanical stress is enormous, and so your creating a substantial piezoelectric effect. At the initial crack, there is mass loss, so the rest of the earth pushes it up in elevation, so to speak. Crust starts to slide away from it (Mid Atlantic ridge) and the collision and compression as the water runs out, shatters and shrivels the crust. (Enceladus is an example of tidal pumping)

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
At the surface, the explosion is kinetic, there isn't much heat, because super critical water when rapidly expanded, rapidly cools. Much water/rock is shot into space. Water,rock without enough velocity falls back to earth as rain, heavy rain and even ice, meteors. The water is dumping the dissolved sediment that spills out, which becomes relatively sorted due to the wave oscillations and pressure. As the crust compresses and collides, mountains are pushed up. Inner shearing occurs as the mass moves toward the Atl Ridge, the pacific subsides, creating the ring of fire. Eventually, over a year, things settle down enough to current rates of plate drift/earthquakes, mountain heights, etc.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2011
To learn in depth about that, go here:
http://creationsc...ew6.html

Since we touched on radioactivity earlier:
http://creationsc...ty2.html

I'll be glad to discuss it further, if you'll PM once you've read it. Brevity doesn't do it justice.
hush1
not rated yet Sep 30, 2011
Offered is my solution for malaria: Genetically altering,injecting embryos with RNA creating both sexes offspring with asymmetric wingspans that forces circular flight.
Give me the funds, lab and team. Or forever hold your peace.

The trait remains harmless if all species acquire this. There is no eradication or extinction. The chain remains intact.
Acoustical mating signals possessing more the one tone is without consequence.

Any objections?