Throwing 1,000 Consecutive Heads

Temujin

Well-known member
EVOLUTION ISM

EvolutionISM is a religion....the preachers are guys such as Gould, Darwin...Bill Nye the Science guy, etc.
They fervently follows the beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of the above preachers.

Then there are little evongelist such as the false prophet who post on this forum....claiming EVOLUTION ISM IS TRUE....as they thump their text books...Now that is enough to make anyone sick

The evo-scientist always looking for a hand out...offering, can you say grant?

Even your donations to the religion of EvolutionISM are often tax deductible.

Sure the preachers of evolutionISM may not have a stained glass windowed buildings...but they do have lecture halls where the deceived come to hear the latest.

The evos use these institutionalized system to ground themselves in such belief and worship of mans fallible science.

The Christians uses the book of Genesis from the Word of God to help us understand our Godly origins while the disciples of evolutionISM try to force fit fossils into some fragmented gapped filled so-called evolutionary linage.

Christianity says we need salvation...we are all sinners and need the blood of Jesus Christ to wash us white as snow...while the typical evolutionISM believer says there is no sin, no price to pay....no need for salvation. Their claim is man is the measure of all means.

Of course there are different denominations of evolutionISM, considering they all don't believe the same thing. Some are gradual, some are punctuated. Some claim birds are dinos while some preach, no way!. Some followers of organized religious denominational evolutionISM allow god as a creator.

Some of the different sects of evolutionISM have man continuing to evolve and achieving the Omega Point......tell me that's not religion.

Christianity has miracles; evolutionISM has the need for magical mutations.

The evos belief is in reverence for the power of natural selection and other powers regarded as a creation force that governs the universe.

EvolutionISM is truly an ISM theory. It has NEVER been witnesses, predicted or repeated in a lab. There are no examples of morphological mutations.

Most of the followers of evolutionism are fervent in their faith...the way the evos act here easily proves that point.

They follow their cause, their principle, and pursue their activities with zeal and conscientious devotion.
So, just in your head. As I thought.
 

rossum

Well-known member
I don't demean science by calling it a religion....I simply showed you where evolution isn't real science but rather a religion.
Exactly. You place religion as inferior to science. A rather strange attitude for someone as religious as you.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
Exactly. You place religion as inferior to science. A rather strange attitude for someone as religious as you.
No, I place what the bible has to say about nature....as a way of processing the lens of science.

For example I know bio-material can't exist in a bone fragment for 65+ MY's. You depend on your religion of evolutionism to show that I'm wrong.
 

rossum

Well-known member
No, I place what the bible has to say about nature....as a way of processing the lens of science.
So, America, Kangaroos and the planet Neptune do not exist? After all, they are not mentioned in the Bible. You need to learn that the Bible is not a science textbook.

For example I know bio-material can't exist in a bone fragment for 65+ MY's.
No you do not know that, you believe it.

You depend on your religion of evolutionism to show that I'm wrong.
I'm afraid that "evolutionism" is your religion, after all you invented it. I am Buddhist, as I have told you before.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
So, America, Kangaroos and the planet Neptune do not exist? After all, they are not mentioned in the Bible. You need to learn that the Bible is not a science textbook.
I never claimed the bible was a science text book....typically that's a strawman claim the evo-minded make for bible believers.

I notice you never get a chance to use it.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
Yes you do. Was there a worldwide flood in the last 20,000 years? Read literally, the Bible says yes. Science says no. What do you say?
Yes it happened.

There are volumes upon volumes of books and material that explains this scientific event.

It even explains the biomaterial found in Dino fossils...something OE evo's can't do.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Yes it happened.
No it did not. There is no evidence of a recent universal genetic bottleneck in land animal species.

There are volumes upon volumes of books and material that explains this scientific event.
No there are not. There are many books of Christian apologetics attempting (unsuccessfully) to throw doubt on the scientific evidence against a recent universal flood.

All you have to show me is evidence from the DNA of kangaroos and armadillos indicating a recent genetic bottleneck in their ancestry. In both cases, your flood myth claims that they are each descended from two individuals. Show us the evidence please.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
No it did not. There is no evidence of a recent universal genetic bottleneck in land animal species.
We've discussed this...and EVERY TIME you run away with your tail tucked between your legs.

Let me mention a word to you again....heterozygosity.
 

rossum

Well-known member
We've discussed this...and EVERY TIME you run away with your tail tucked between your legs.

Let me mention a word to you again....heterozygosity.
Yes, heterozygosity.

At most a single animal can have two alleles (look up 'allele') at a single locus (look up 'locus'). One allele from each parent. If the alleles are different (sometimes they are the same) then that animal is heterozygous at that locus. If the alleles are the same, then the animal is homozygous at that locus. That means both parents gave their offspring the same allele.

Hence a single pair of animals, as on the ark, can have at most a maximum of four alleles for a given locus between them.

What you have to do is to measure the number of alleles at a representative sample of loci ('loci' is the plural of 'locus') in contemporary armadillos and contemporary kangaroos. Then you have to compare the number of alleles at each locus relative to four. An allele can be lost, so the number can be less than four. A new allele may be caused by a mutation, so the number of alleles may be greater than four.

Where the number of alleles is greater than four you have to show that known mutation rates can give rise to that many additional alleles in the time since the flood. Be warned, some loci in primates have hundreds of different alleles across the population.

For an example of a population with a recent genetic bottleneck, look at cheetah DNA. They have diverged so little in about 10,000 years that skin grafts are compatible between them. There is minimal rejection reaction.

Better get working, you have a lot to do.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
Yes, heterozygosity.

At most a single animal can have two alleles (look up 'allele') at a single locus (look up 'locus'). One allele from each parent. If the alleles are different (sometimes they are the same) then that animal is heterozygous at that locus. If the alleles are the same, then the animal is homozygous at that locus. That means both parents gave their offspring the same allele.

Hence a single pair of animals, as on the ark, can have at most a maximum of four alleles for a given locus between them.

What you have to do is to measure the number of alleles at a representative sample of loci ('loci' is the plural of 'locus') in contemporary armadillos and contemporary kangaroos. Then you have to compare the number of alleles at each locus relative to four. An allele can be lost, so the number can be less than four. A new allele may be caused by a mutation, so the number of alleles may be greater than four.

Where the number of alleles is greater than four you have to show that known mutation rates can give rise to that many additional alleles in the time since the flood. Be warned, some loci in primates have hundreds of different alleles across the population.

For an example of a population with a recent genetic bottleneck, look at cheetah DNA. They have diverged so little in about 10,000 years that skin grafts are compatible between them. There is minimal rejection reaction.

Better get working, you have a lot to do.
You act as if the % of heterozygosity...hasn't changed.
 

rossum

Well-known member
You act as if the % of heterozygosity...hasn't changed.
It has changed. What hasn't changed is that each individual can carry a maximum of two alleles. An individual can be homozygous or heterozygous at any given locus. That means each pair on the Ark had a maximum of four alleles for any given locus. Percentage heterozygosity is measured in a population, not in individuals.

If the flood story is correct, then any alleles above four in a population must have evolved since the flood. We can compare excess alleles above four with mutation rates and confirm whether or not the flood story is literally true.

As I mentioned above, I suggest that you look at the genetics of cheetahs, which are an example of what I am talking about. They were reduced to a single family not too long ago. They are a living example of what kangaroos and armadillos would be like if the flood was worldwide.

Have you gathered your DNA evidence yet?
 

CrowCross

Super Member
It has changed. What hasn't changed is that each individual can carry a maximum of two alleles. An individual can be homozygous or heterozygous at any given locus. That means each pair on the Ark had a maximum of four alleles for any given locus. Percentage heterozygosity is measured in a population, not in individuals.

If the flood story is correct, then any alleles above four in a population must have evolved since the flood. We can compare excess alleles above four with mutation rates and confirm whether or not the flood story is literally true.

As I mentioned above, I suggest that you look at the genetics of cheetahs, which are an example of what I am talking about. They were reduced to a single family not too long ago. They are a living example of what kangaroos and armadillos would be like if the flood was worldwide.

Have you gathered your DNA evidence yet?
Why do you keep falling back onto your assertions when heterozygosity has a play in genetics? You act as if heterozygosity means nothing.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Why do you keep falling back onto your assertions when heterozygosity has a play in genetics? You act as if heterozygosity means nothing.
Heterozygosity means that you have to show that currently observed levels of heterozygosity in land animals are possible given that all existing land animals, such as kangaroos and armadillos, are descended from a single pair within the last 6,000 years.

Failure to do that means that your literal interpretation of the flood story is incorrect.

You get four alleles as a free starter. Any locus with more than four alleles requires an explanation.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Why do you keep falling back onto your assertions when heterozygosity has a play in genetics? You act as if heterozygosity means nothing.
On the contrary, it is because scientists understand heteroxygosity (Good grief, schoolchildren understand heteroxygosity) and you don't, that we know that the flood didn't happen.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Can we throw 1,000 consecutive heads on a fair coin? Yes, providing we go the right way about it. The raw chance is low, 1 in 2^1000, but it can be done.

Start with 5,000 blank cards, plus a lot more spare cards. And pens, we'll need pens to write on the cards. Plus, of course, a coin to toss.

For each of your 5,000 cards toss the coin. If it comes up tails, throw that card away. If it comes up heads, take two blank card, mark each with an 'H' for heads, and put them in a new pile. You should end up with about 5,000 cards in the new pile, each marked with an 'H'.

Now start on the new pile, which is now the old pile, if that makes sense. For each card in the (new) old pile throw the coin. If it comes up tails, throw that card away. It it comes up heads, pick two blank cards and mark them 'HH', because you now have two consecutive heads. Throw away the old card with a single 'H' on it. Again you will have about 5,000 cards with "HH".

Repeat the process. Tails means throw the card away. Heads means two more cards, each with an additional 'H', because you rolled heads.

Repeat, repeat, repeat until you end up with a tired wrist and about 5,000 cards each with 1,000 consecutive H's on them.

Looking back through the route by which every card in your final pile got there, each card is the result of 1,000 consecutive heads on the coin. Any time tails came up, that card was binned, so there are no tails on the final set of cards, only heads. One thousand consecutive heads.

How does this thought experiment relate to evolution?

Throwing tails is equivalent to not having any descendants. Throwing heads is equivalent to having descendants. In the real world, the chances are not 50/50, but there is some probability. Every one of your ancestors managed to breed successfully. If even one ancestor didn't succeed, then you wouldn't be here. You are the end of a very very long line of successful breeders, with not one single failure. Not one.

The H's on the cards are an analogue of the DNA passed from parents to offspring. That DNA is the DNA of successful breeders, and only of successful breeders—all heads with no tails. Unsuccessful breeders did not pass their DNA on to any modern descendants; if the coin came up tails that card was thrown away.

The 5,000 current cards are the breeding population. Each round of die rolls is a generation. Throwing away old cards is the previous generation dying away.

The thought experiment with cards, coin and pen is a very simple model of evolution. It shows how evolution can beat seemingly impossible odds by spreading out the odds over time. A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. A lot of steps will come after, but only successful breeders can take each following step on the journey.
I got a little lost in this one.(the new becoming the old pile). But your population didn't increase. You started with 5000 cards and ended with 5000 cards. You may have successful breeders but the numbers are stagnant. How does this reflect evolution that starts out with one naked self replicating cell and eventually slowly blossoms into what we have now?
 
Last edited:
Top