A little wisdom from an old man

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Then why not...0.0005% ?
Here is a clip from an article on mutations in evolution. Keep it in mind I am no expert. Do you think the experts in the field haven't come across your questions before?

Mutations can have a range of effects. They can often be harmful. Others have little or no detrimental effect. And sometimes, although very rarely, the change in DNA sequence may even turn out to be beneficial to the organism.

Article found here.

Why don't you read it?
 

docphin5

Well-known member
So, God said...let there be knowledge?

And God said, “Let there be knowledge,” and there was knowledge. 4 And God saw that the knowledge was good, and He separated the knowledge from the not knowledge. 5 God called the knowledge “day,” and the not knowledge He called “night.”
Yes! For just as night follows day, so does ignorance of God follow knowledge of God. Look here:

“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” (John 8:12)

and before him was another light,

“He [John] was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light.” (John 5:35)…”and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthew 11:14)

But just as darkness follows light before the light rises again at the next sunrise so did Jesus pass into the night to make way for the next day.

“We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” (John 9:4)…”it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you.” (16:7)


If anything I think the light is more related to this verse from Revelation.. 23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp.

But if you need it to mean "knowledge", then have at it.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Great.
Are you claiming you KNOW your very existence was caused by millions of random mutations, starting with protoplasmic slime, which somehow resulted in your consciousness? How do you know?
Yes, I'm claiming that. We don't know how life got started, but we have a very good understanding of what happened after it did. I'm claiming that on the basis of that's what the experts in the field say. At one time, after Darwin first published, evolution wasn't accepted by the scientific community because although Darwin had got the basics right, there was a lot we didn't understand. For example, it needed huge amounts of time and the age of the Earth wasn't thought long enough in those days. We now have a much better understanding and evidence from multiple scientific disciplines that all point to evolution being true. In order tor evolution to be false, we would have to have so much wrong which doesn't look likely.

Here is a clip from an article about how we know evolution is true.

Unlike many other animals, we humans are not able to make our own vitamin C. We started realizing this deficiency when long sea voyages became more common. After a couple of months at sea eating only things like dried meat and hardtack biscuits, humans had high rates of scurvy (and many died). But the animals on board (like horses, dogs, and mice) did not contract the disease. We now know that this is due to the human inability to synthesize vitamin C the way these other animals can (and the problem was addressed by the British Navy by supplying their ships with lemon juice for sailors to drink).By comparing the genetic codes of people and animals, scientists discovered that a specific gene is “broken” in humans, preventing production of one of the enzymes needed for synthesizing vitamin C. It has also been discovered that other primates—chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and monkeys—cannot make their own vitamin C either. So that leads to a very specific prediction: if these primates are related to us through a common ancestor, we would expect the same gene to be broken in them in the same way. And it turns out, that is just what we find. The best explanation is that a mutation event occurred in the common ancestor of these species, rendering all of their descendants unable to make vitamin C.
Found here.

Here is a clip from the Wiki page on the level of support for evolution.

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity, with 87% accepting that evolution occurs due to natural processes, such as natural selection.[1][2] Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.[3]
There are religious sects and denominations in several countries for whom the theory of evolution is in conflict with creationism that is central to their beliefs, and who therefore reject it: in the United States,[4][5][6][7][8][9] South Africa,[10] India, Muslim world, South Korea, Singapore, the Philippines, and Brazil, with smaller followings in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Japan, Italy, Germany, Israel,[11] Australia,[12] New Zealand,[13] and Canada.[14]
Found here.
 
Last edited:

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Great.

Yes, I'm claiming that.

So you yourself have not empirically verified any random mutation resulting in a new species which went on to successfully reproduce, nor do you know of anyone who has, but you claim its truth, nevertheless. I guess that rather than adhere to the scientific theory (an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated), you have decided to base your belief on faith.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
So you yourself have not empirically verified any random mutation resulting in a new species which went on to successfully reproduce,
True. I but haven't verified for myself that the Twin Towers weren't a put up job by the American government either. Should I believe it was because of it?
nor do you know of anyone who has, but you claim its truth, nevertheless.
Yes I do. I have read various books on the subject written by those who have researched the subject.
I guess that rather than adhere to the scientific theory (an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated), you have decided to base your belief on faith.
Do you deny that there are experts in the field who base their beliefs about evolution on the scientific method?

I thought you were angling for this point all along. Why have you ignored the articles I posted that point to evolution?
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
True. I but haven't verified for myself that the Twin Towers weren't a put up job by the American government either. Should I believe it was because of it?

Bad reply. We have video, plus thousands of witnesses to the events of 9/11/2001. Yet we have nary a soul who has ever witnessed a random mutation that resulted in a new species which went on to reproduce, not so much as a fruit fly and especially not one that resulted in the homo sapien species. I guess you don't have much respect for the scientific theory.

Do you deny that there are experts in the field who base their beliefs about evolution on the scientific method?

Yes, I do.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Bad reply. We have video, plus thousands of witnesses to the events of 9/11/2001. Yet we have nary a soul who has ever witnessed a random mutation that resulted in a new species which went on to reproduce, not so much as a fruit fly and especially not one that resulted in the homo sapien species. I guess you don't have much respect for the scientific theory.
The point you made was about verifying something for yourself. I have not verified for myself whether it was as reported or a put up job. Should I think it a put up job because I haven't verified it for myself?
Yes, I do.
Oh dear. And what research have you done to know that this is true?
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
The point you made was about verifying something for yourself. I have not verified for myself whether it was as reported or a put up job. Should I think it a put up job because I haven't verified it for myself?

Sure, if you want to be so stupid as to think thousands of eyewitnesses were lying, and that all those videos of the second plane were faked.

Oh dear. And what research have you done to know that this is true?

The verification would be up to the supposed witnesses of this evolution allegedly in progress.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Sure, if you want to be so stupid as to think thousands of eyewitnesses were lying, and that all those videos of the second plane were faked.
So there are things then that you don't have verify for yourself, right?
The verification would be up to the supposed witnesses of this evolution allegedly in progress.
That's none then. Thinking that there are biologists who don't base their beliefs about evolution on the scientific method, and providing no reason to think what you say is true, is somewhat like thinking 9/11 was a put up job. You have to believe that there are thousands of biologists lying about it, and acting out this lie in the classrooms every day.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
So there are things then that you don't have verify for yourself, right?

Yes. For example, It was cloudy this morning. I never saw the sunrise, never verified it, but I know the sun rose.

That's none then. Thinking that there are biologists who don't base their beliefs about evolution on the scientific method, and providing no reason to think what you say is true, is somewhat like thinking 9/11 was a put up job. You have to believe that there are thousands of biologists lying about it, and acting out this lie in the classrooms every day.

Nope. Let me continue to educate you on the difference: There are many videos plus thousands of eyewitness testimonies regarding the events of 9/11/2001. There are no videos and zero eyewitnesses of a random mutation in a species that resulted in a new species that reproduced abundantly, neither as a new species of fruit fly and especially not the homo sapien species.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Nope. Let me continue to educate you on the difference: There are many videos plus thousands of eyewitness testimonies regarding the events of 9/11/2001. There are no videos and zero eyewitnesses of a random mutation in a species that resulted in a new species that reproduced abundantly, neither as a new species of fruit fly and especially not the homo sapien species.
So what? There are lots of indirect observations that show evolution true.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Ok. There are two fundamental elements to evolution, mutation which is random, and natural selection which isn't. An example of natural selection is the colour of polar bear coats. There will be random changes in the genes that give the coat it's colour, but the bears with the best camouflage will have more of a chance to survive and pass on this advantageous gene than those with poor. This part of evolution isn't random.
The mutation is random. It was just dumb luck for the bear that got the mutation and was able to pass it down.
Is nature doing the selection or is the mutation doing the selection?
If something isn't random, is it planned?

antonyms for random
  • essential.
  • methodical.
  • planned.
  • systematic.
  • definite.
  • particular.
  • specific
I think Lennox is a good speaker, but a lot of his points are naïve. His argument about natural random processes can't produce creatures capable of trustworthy reason is wrong from the get go, as evolution isn't random as I've been saying. He should know this, but apparently he doesn't. There are other objections as well.
I know you believe nature does the selecting but don't you see how odd it is to say that, as if Nature could make a choice. As if it had a mind to choose one way or another. There was a random mutation in the genes that have to do with the color of the bear's coat. Now the bear can live longer because its coat is now a type of camouflage. The bear can reproduce and pass on that camouflage gene. It is simply dumb luck.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
The mutation is random. It was just dumb luck for the bear that got the mutation and was able to pass it down.
Is nature doing the selection or is the mutation doing the selection?
Nature.
If something isn't random, is it planned?

antonyms for random
  • essential.
  • methodical.
  • planned.
  • systematic.
  • definite.
  • particular.
  • specific
Maybe?
I know you believe nature does the selecting but don't you see how odd it is to say that, as if Nature could make a choice. As if it had a mind to choose one way or another. There was a random mutation in the genes that have to do with the color of the bear's coat. Now the bear can live longer because its coat is now a type of camouflage. The bear can reproduce and pass on that camouflage gene. It is simply dumb luck.
Of course, I'm not saying that nature makes a choice, it's just blind nature doing what it has to do.

As to the bear camouflage being just dumb luck, I think there's something more to it than that. Given evolution, I think it was inevitable that the coat would turn white, so it's not just dumb luck.

Again though, I am right on the limit of what I know, so further research on your part might be helpful.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
So what? There are lots of indirect observations that show evolution true.

You mean from whence you can subjectively, not OBjectively deduce things, while abandoning the scientific method. No, on second thought, you yourself do not even make the INDIRECT observations. You've simply heard tale that others have.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
You mean from whence you can subjectively, not OBjectively deduce things, while abandoning the scientific method. No, on second thought, you yourself do not even make the INDIRECT observations. You've simply heard tale that others have.
Evolution is the most well evidenced subject in all of science. I'm going with the experts in the field here.

What's your expertise in this subject?
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Evolution is the most well evidenced subject in all of science. I'm going with the experts in the field here.

But you don't deny the truth of my previous comments.

What's your expertise in this subject?

I never claimed any. I ask questions which the so-called experts cannot answer. I do have a degree in Physics, so I am well acquainted with the scientific method and its disuse in the field of evolution.
 
Top