Sciences vs. Religion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

YesNo, you used the words "implies" and "belief" but Psarris is presenting facts not beliefs, all of which he presents in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI. I can't attempt to present his abundance of proof in this post. I can tell you're aware of the content though and I respect you for that.

Regarding Mutation, here are some questions to evolutionists…how can accidental copying mistakes create massive volumes of information in the DNA of living things such as creating a microbiologist from changing billions of DNA letters in a microbe without instructions of how to control their use or when. Mutations are known for their destructive effects like human diseases. They are rarely helpful. And "How can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?" ~An Impossible Conundrum for Evolution

108 Fountains…thank you for your comment

---

You understand natural selection, right? There can be 1000 harmful mutations in a population, but if just one of them is beneficial, that one might help the organism survive and therefore the mutation might stick around longer than the others that got no mutation or got a harmful mutation. The beneficial mutation is selected, naturally, based on the environmental conditions. So that pretty much answers how an "accidental copying" as you put it can create all the complexity we know today. It's a step by step process that builds off of what came before, and over extreme lengths of time, can produce quite complex things like you and me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frostball

You understand natural selection, right? There can be 1000 harmful mutations in a population, but if just one of them is beneficial, that one might help the organism survive and therefore the mutation might stick around longer than the others that got no mutation or got a harmful mutation. The beneficial mutation is selected, naturally, based on the environmental conditions….

---

Natural selection does not explain the origin of the diversity of life. It's a selective process, not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest but not where the genes and organisms came from in the first place. Life and death by survival of the fittest does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. Mutations are copying mistakes, things like DNA "letters’"exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc. They are rarely beneficial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

Natural selection does not explain the origin of the diversity of life. It's a selective process, not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest but not where the genes and organisms came from in the first place. Life and death by survival of the fittest does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. Mutations are copying mistakes, things like DNA "letters’"exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc. They are rarely beneficial.

---

Well like I said, even though they are rarely beneficial if there are 1000 harmful mutations, and 1 beneficial mutation, that one will be selected by the environment. In what way can this not explain the diversity of life? You admit mutations happen. Mutations are random, but there is a mechanism by which certain mutations are selected for, and that mechanism is the environment naturally selecting which organisms survive. The result of this is that species slowly evolve over time to adapt to their environment.

Yes, parts of each species adapt to their environment. That's pretty obvious. But those minor back-and-forth variations in species' parts doesn't explain the origin of species itself. Example…bird's beaks change back and forth as they adapt to their environment but that doesn't explain the origin of beaks nor the origin of birds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

You two are grabbing at straws because...
you either can't find fault with the content or have no idea what the content is.

---

I can't read or watch everything, produce a positive review from a top astronomer and I might take a look.

Quote:

---

mal4mac can only attack the intelligence of an Aerospace Engineer
who is "merely" part of the team responsible for all space exploration…as if he
hasn't read anything about space…yeah right mal.

---

I'm not questioning his intelligence, I'm questioning his expertise. Imagine some naturalists flying above Africa, studying Elephant migration. Who would you trust to give you a description of Elephant migration in Africa? The aeronautical engineer who designed the plane, or one of those naturalists. However intelligent the engineer, I'll be asking the naturalist. I might consider your recommendations on poetry Melanie, but by not being able to distinguish between an engineer and an astronomer, I think you are showing your total lack of knowledge in this area, so I'll give this video a miss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

I can't read or watch everything...I'll give this video a miss.

---

Your loss. It's nothing but factual. Facts are facts. Doesn't take anything special except putting it all together in an excellent presentation. It's not post worthy why you "can't read or watch everything" because that choice is expected of most. It's there for those who want to learn what astronomers are not telling us. In fact, that's part of the title. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

Yes, parts of each species adapt to their environment. That's pretty obvious. But those minor back-and-forth variations in species' parts doesn't explain the origin of species itself. Example…bird's beaks change back and forth as they adapt to their environment but that doesn't explain the origin of beaks nor the origin of birds.

---

A lot of work has been done on the origin of birds:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6196/562

But I suggest you begin by reading Richard Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth" to get some feel for how new species emerge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

Your loss. It's nothing but factual. Facts are facts. Doesn't take anything special except putting it all together in an excellent presentation. It's not post worthy why you "can't read or watch everything" because that choice is expected of most. It's there for those who want to learn what astronomers are not telling us.

---

Facts can be distorted, and any old theory spun out of them. There are a hundred crank papers on the internet juggling such "facts" for every decent paper. I'll wait until a peer reviewed paper in Nature appears.

Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins. In almost every post. Dawkins is your alpha and omega. Not mine. I'll look at your link.

I read your link…okay, birds came from Dinosaurs haha. First they say 10 million years ago. Then they changed their mind to 50 million years ago. They're confused from the get-go. My video explains clearly and precisely why the creation of the solar universe is not nearly that old even.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins. In almost every post. Dawkins is your alpha and omega. Not mine. I'll look at your link.

---

In what other post was Dawkins mentioned?

Frostball, see post #451 from mal4mac to you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

Omg, Frostball, you've never seen mal4mac mention Dawkins before? I'll let you find his posts with Dawkins mentioned yourself…it won't take you long.

---

Well, I don't know about that, but we were talking about evolution and mal4mac suggested a book by a more or less well respected biologist. Seems perfectly on point to me.

Just out of curiosity I checked out mal4mac's recent posts and used the find function to look for "dawkins" and the only instance of it on the first page was the one he just made. I even looked at the second page, and there wasn't an instance of "dawkins" there either. It only shows the first section of every post, but still, I don't see any evidence of your claim.

frost ball…see post 451 from mal4mac to you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

frost ball…if you use the search box above it will only give you the name of the thread where dawkins is mentioned. Then you have to go to the thread and scroll through the thread to find his posts (dawkins name will be highlighted). You can also go to mal4mac's profile and scroll through his religious posts to find them.

Why do you want proof of this??? This thread is about something much more important that how many times mal4mac says Dawkin's name. I'm not going to waste my time to do it for you. Let's stay on topic okay? No offense.

---

Hah! You're the one who decided to bring the entirely irrelevant fact of how often mal4mac mentioned Dawkins. As far as searching for mal4mac mentioning dawkins I'm talking about when you click on his name and you can see all the recent posts he's made. It doesn't show the entire post, but if it was indeed true that he talks about Dawkins all the time you would expect it to happen in the beginning of the post at least once. But no, I looked at several pages and the only single instance of "dawkins" was the one he made just now. I'm calling you out on a claim you made and you say we should stay on topic? Come on!

It wouldn't even matter if he DID refer to Dawkins often, so you trying to say that was worse than off topic, it was completely irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melanie

I read your link…okay, birds came from Dinosaurs haha. First they say 10 million years ago. Then they changed their mind to 50 million years ago. They're confused from the get-go.

---

That's because scientists are always refining their theories because new evidence is always appearing. They didn't just 'change their mind' on a whim, they took into account many new facts & theories and came up with a more acceptable theory. They made a rough estimate when they started, now they have a better estimate. Actually the biblical estimate might be thought of as the first rough estimate, i.e., "more than 4000 years ago". Fair enough to start with, I guess, but a lot more evidence has piled up in the last 2000 years, so we can make better estimates (if still a bit rough...)