Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Stripe]

It was impossible to build. At the time of construction ship-building was primitive.People didnt yet know how to join multiple logs together when creating a central beam for the bow of a ship (they also didn't know how to seal spaces between wooden pieces, making sinking a near certainty). It would've had to be one giant piece from a single tree. And unless there was a Giant Redwood invasion over in the Middle East that nobody has ever found evidence of, there wouldn't be a tree big enough for the central beam of a ship that had the biblical ark's dimensions

What? All because you say so?

And you just ignored the logical shortcoming of your assertion. There are plenty of things that could have happened that would explain you not finding the ark.

Combine that with the many futile expeditions to find Noah's Ark, and the geological history of the planet, and it's pretty clear

Nobody has found anything, therefore it doesn't exist.

Typical Darwinist logic.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Instead of cherry-picking the parts you like and ignoring the parts you don't, the answer is glaringly obvious and specifically noted in the paper(s) YOU cite. But you ignore the solution, not because it is impossible, but, because it conflicts with no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field can be valid if it contradicts (your personal interpretation of) the scriptural record.

Well Mr Hunter..... You are wrong.

I'm not even close to being wrong. It's bad enough you're not honest in your disagreement, you're not even honest with yourself.

They present the data.... then they propose solutions trying to make the data fit their beiefs.

Obviously you STILL don't understand the article(s) YOU, yourself, cite. The solution matches the data, it can't be otherwise. You'd rather it not because it conflicts with your personal preferred interpretation of the "scriptural record".

I ACCEPT the data... You reject it since it contradicts your belief system.

You ask, " How CAN natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2".

Natural selection CAN (and does it seems) remove VSDM's by the proposed mechanism cited in the article.

 

[Greg Jennings]

What? All because you say so?

And you just ignored the logical shortcoming of your assertion. There are plenty of things that could have happened that would explain you not finding the ark.

Nobody has found anything, therefore it doesn't exist.

Typical Darwinist logic.

If you don't like it, then fine. I found out about all this over a decade ago. I'm not hunting down the info for you. Sorry. And there's not a snowball's chance in hell you'd actually consider changing your opinion when if I did. You operate within the "If it contradicts Genesis literally, it's not real" framework. There isn't a point for me to provide a reference, and it would take forever to find it (I would assume)

It's cool with me if you don't believe me. I know what I saw/heard. I think you should really quit assuming everybody is like you creationists, and lies constantly. Most of us aren't like that

 

[Jose Fly]

You ask, " How CAN natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2".

Natural selection CAN (and does it seems) remove VSDM's by the proposed mechanism cited in the article.

It's not even that. As I've been saying, 6days' question is nonsense on several fronts.

First, the current view among geneticists is that each of us is born with about seven de novo deleterious mutations, not 100. Second, his question assumes that selection must eliminate every single deleterious mutation as soon as it arises. Obviously that's a ridiculous straw man.

But the bigger issue here is that 6days either doesn't understand what the "paradox" is that these geneticists are referring to, or he does understand but is hoping none of the rest of us do. The funny thing is, the Kondrashov (1995) paper 6days started off citing tells us what the paradox is....right in the title.

Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?

I'm assuming that everyone here understands that a "paradox" is a conflict between two things, where both can't be true. So Kondrashov's paradox is that on one hand his statistical modeling of the evolving human genome shows that we should be accumulating these VSDM's to the point where we should be seeing declines in fitness across the population, but OTOH....in reality we don't see that.

IOW, the conflict behind the paradox is between the modeling and reality.

So Kondrashov publishes his paper where he basically says "According to my statistical modeling and assumptions, we should be seeing the human population declining in fitness over time, yet we don't see that. Thus my modeling must be off. Here are some potential factors that may resolve this paradox."

In the ensuing years Kondrashov and other population geneticists continue to work on their modeling and testing it against the data gathered from the real world. And as has been noted, they eventually agree that synergistic epistasis is likely significant factor that explains why the human population isn't declining in fitness as the models suggested.

I don't know if everyone can get full access to THIS 2017 PAPER, but the authors describe how when they tested synergistic epistasis against reality, they found it to be a real thing.

If you can't get access to that paper, THIS SITE provides a good summary. "In other words, there was stronger selection against high mutation counts, as one would predict due to synergistic epistasis."

I know 6days will just wave away all of this because it doesn't fit with his filter, but I hope this post helps you understand the topic better.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You ask, " How CAN natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2".

Natural selection CAN (and does it seems) remove VSDM's by the proposed mechanism cited in the article.

It's not even that. As I've been saying, 6days' question is nonsense on several fronts.

First, the current view among geneticists is that each of us is born with about seven de novo deleterious mutations, not 100. Second, his question assumes that selection must eliminate every single deleterious mutation as soon as it arises. Obviously that's a ridiculous straw man.

But the bigger issue here is that 6days either doesn't understand what the "paradox" is that these geneticists are referring to, or he does understand but is hoping none of the rest of us do. The funny thing is, the Kondrashov (1995) paper 6days started off citing tells us what the paradox is....right in the title.

Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?

I'm assuming that everyone here understands that a "paradox" is a conflict between two things, where both can't be true. So Kondrashov's paradox is that on one hand his statistical modeling of the evolving human genome shows that we should be accumulating these VSDM's to the point where we should be seeing declines in fitness across the population, but OTOH....in reality we don't see that.

IOW, the conflict behind the paradox is between the modeling and reality.

So Kondrashov publishes his paper where he basically says "According to my statistical modeling and assumptions, we should be seeing the human population declining in fitness over time, yet, we don't see that. Thus my modeling must be off. Here are some potential factors that may resolve this paradox."

In the ensuing years Kondrashov and other population geneticists continue to work on their modeling and testing it against the data gathered from the real world. And as has been noted, they eventually agree that synergistic epistasis is likely significant factor that explains why the human population isn't declining in fitness as the models suggested.

I don't know if everyone can get full access to THIS 2017 PAPER, but the authors describe how when they tested synergistic epistasis against reality, they found it to be a real thing.

If you can't get access to that paper, THIS SITE provides a good summary. "In other words, there was stronger selection against high mutation counts, as one would predict due to synergistic epistasis."

I know 6days will just wave away all of this because it doesn't fit with his filter, but I hope this post helps you understand the topic better.

Since I was replying to 6days via my phone I thought the "Cliff Notes" version would suffice. Your explanation here accurately explains the cited articles and is more in depth than my much shorter post.

 

[Stripe]

If you don't like it, then fine.

I don't dislike poor logic in Darwinists; I just find it amusing. :chuckle:

I found out about all this over a decade ago. I'm not hunting down the info for you. Sorry.

Don't worrry. I have info from the past 10 years. :chuckle:

There's not a snowball's chance in hell you'd actually consider changing your opinion when if I did.

:rotfl:

When you've figured out how to provide evidence for non-existence from failure to uncover, let us know.

You operate within the "If it contradicts Genesis literally, it's not real" framework.

Nope. Evidence.

You've made a claim you can never substantiate. It's not my fault you can't conduct a rational conversation.

There isn't a point for me to provide a reference, and it would take forever to find it (I would assume)

Uh, OK. :idunno:

It's cool with me if you don't believe me. I know what I saw/heard. I think you should really quit assuming everybody is like you creationists, and lies constantly. Most of us aren't like that

:darwinsm:

You're a bundle of nonsense.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Would you believe me if I told you I spent years 12-17 looking for any way that Genesis could be historically accurate?

Just because you didn't find any evidence that Genesis is historically accurate DOES NOT MEAN that it is not historically accurate. It's an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

Specifically Noah's Ark. I wanted so badly to believe it was petrified up on top of Mt Ararat. But after exhausting options, I realized that there is no ark, and as I studied the Earth's geology it became obvious that 10,000 years is laughably young for the Earth's true age

"I, Greg, could not find any evidence that Noah's ark existed, therefore it must not exist."

It was impossible to build.

At the time of construction ship-building was primitive.

Primitive? Try nonexistent.

People didnt yet know how to join multiple logs together when creating a central beam for the bow of a ship (they also didn't know how to seal spaces between wooden pieces, making sinking a near certainty). It would've had to be one giant piece from a single tree. And unless there was a Giant Redwood invasion over in the Middle East that nobody has ever found evidence of, there wouldn't be a tree big enough for the central beam of a ship that had the biblical ark's dimensions

"I, Greg, don't know how Noah could have built an Ark as big as was recorded in Genesis, therefore he couldn't have built one."

That's called an "argument from incredulity," Greg. It's a logical fallacy.

That's also kind of an argument from silence...

The Bible tells us that God told Noah how to build the Ark, yet while it doesn't tell us exactly how, there's no reason not to believe that it's possible that some details were left out.

Spoiler

And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch. And this is how you shall make it: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. You shall make a window for the ark, and you shall finish it to a cubit from above; and set the door of the ark in its side. You shall make it with lower, second, and third decks. And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark—you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. And you shall take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and for them.” Thus Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, so he did. - Genesis 6:13-22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis6:13-22&version=NKJV

Combine that with the many futile expeditions to find Noah's Ark, and the geological history of the planet, and it's pretty clear

Argument from ignorance, again.

 

[Stuu]

The Bible tells us that God told Noah how to build the Ark, yet while it doesn't tell us exactly how, there's no reason not to believe that it's possible that some details were left out.

It leaves out the bit that warns Noah that it is not possible to build a seaworthy wooden boat that big without using a substantial amount of steel framing, or equivalent supporting structure.

Stuart

 

[JudgeRightly]

It leaves out the bit that warns Noah that it is not possible to build a seaworthy wooden boat that big without using a substantial amount of steel framing, or equivalent supporting structure.

Stuart

Argument from ignorance.

"I, Stuart, cannot conceive of a way that an ark that size could be built, therefore it must not have been built."

:think:

 

[Stuu]

Argument from ignorance.

"I, Stuart, cannot conceive of a way that an ark that size could be built, therefore it must not have been built."

:think:

I'm afraid it is the argument from boat building.

Try the Holy Wikipedia.

Stuart

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm afraid it is the argument from boat building.

Try the Holy Wikipedia.

Stuart

I see "Noah's Ark" on there, under "Claimed but poorly documented" section.

"I, Stuart, see no description on how the ark was built, therefore it cannot be done."

Argument from silence.

 

[Stuu]

I see "Noah's Ark" on there, under "Claimed but poorly documented" section.

"I, Stuart, see no description on how the ark was built, therefore it cannot be done."

Argument from silence.

A straw man argument. What I actually wrote was: "it is not possible to build a seaworthy wooden boat that big without using a substantial amount of steel framing, or equivalent supporting structure."

I have read the description that you have read, in Genesis. Unless gopher wood is a material similar to steel and lost since ancient times, then I have no problem standing by my claim.

I base my claim on the reality of humans attempting to build wooden boats. You seem to be basing your attempt at refutation on disbelief.

Stuart

 

[6days]

The solution matches the data, it can't be otherwise.

Funny You. Did you want to discuss his potential resolution. His 'solution is biologically unrealistic.... and rejected by other biologists who propose different solutions.


Maybe you should ask yourself why you need a solution, rather than accept the data.

You ask, " How CAN natural selection, simultaneously select and remove 100 VSDM's per person, per generation in a population with a birth rate of about 2".


Natural selection CAN (and does it seems) remove VSDM's by the proposed mechanism cited in the article.

Your belief words are noted..."it seems"... and, "proposed".

Hunter... apparently, you didn't read the article...and, you don't understand genetics. If you even know what the "proposed" rescue device is, can you name it and defend it? BTW...Natural selection is impotent at detecting and removing VSDM's... Adding to the problem, is that selection can't even remove most deleterious mutations. (Genetic problems will continue to increase).

 

[6days]

Would you believe me if I told you I spent years 12-17 looking for any way that Genesis could be historically accurate?

If that is true, then why do you not seem to know the creation account?

Specifically Noah's Ark. I wanted so badly to believe it was petrified up on top of Mt Ararat.

So You wanted to believe something the Bible, logic and science don't support.

Science: Why did you think a wooden ship on a muddy mountain would become petrified?

Logic: Could a large wooden ship on a mountain get hit by lightning and burn? Could humans have used it for firewood? Could there have been mudslides or avalanches that destroyed or buried it? Could it have ended up in a mountain stream, and eroded by insects and oxidation?

BIBLE: The Bible doesn't tell us the ark was on My. Ararat It says the mountains of Ararat. (Plural). This may... possibly be even a different mountain range. (Mt. Ararat It seems is a volcanic, post flood mountain)

But after exhausting options, I realized that there is no ark, and as I studied the Earth's geology it became obvious that 10,000 years is laughably young for the Earth's true age

"In those days before the flood, the people were enjoying banquets and parties and weddings right up to the time Noah entered his boat. People didn't realize what was going to happen until the flood came and swept them all away. That is the way it will be when the Son of Man comes." Matt. 24:38,39

 

[6days]

"it is not possible to build a seaworthy wooden boat that big without using a substantial amount of steel framing, or equivalent supporting structure."

Naval architects from MOERI (a ship research centre) disagrees with you. http://worldwideflood.com/ark/hull_form/hull_optimization.htm


Also... Noah may have used 'iron in the construction of the ark..we don't know, but it is very possible. (We see iron being used just a few generations after the flood, so the technology very likely was pre-flood).

 

[Stuu]

Naval architects from MOERI (a ship research centre) disagrees with you. http://worldwideflood.com/ark/hull_form/hull_optimization.htm

As you can see from the examples on that Holy Wikipedia page, it's not a matter of proportion. The problem is length.

Also... Noah may have used 'iron in the construction of the ark..we don't know, but it is very possible. (We see iron being used just a few generations after the flood, so the technology very likely was pre-flood).

In other words you are willing to speculate in a lazy way off the top of your head. Well, it would have been meteoric iron at the supposed time you allege this non-existent flood took place, so good luck piecing together a narrative that has Noah finding enough of that for the structure of a boat, to be consistent with the list of 'instructions' you do have:

Genesis 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
6:16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

...which makes no mention of a diagonal cross-bracing of iron.

I don't know why you seem resistant to just saying that your god helped Noah using magic.

Stuart

 

[JudgeRightly]

As you can see from the examples on that Holy Wikipedia page, it's not a matter of proportion. The problem is length.

In other words you are willing to speculate in a lazy way off the top of your head. Well, it would have been meteoric iron at the supposed time you allege this non-existent flood took place,

No, it would not have been meteoric iron. Meteors are a result of the Flood, and therefore would not have existed prior to it.

so good luck piecing together a narrative that has Noah finding enough of that for the structure of a boat, to be consistent with the list of 'instructions' you do have:

You seem to think that these people would not have been smart enough to know how to work the earth.

You should read The Genius of Ancient Man by Don Landis. People were pretty smart back then.

Genesis 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
6:16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

...which makes no mention of a diagonal cross-bracing of iron.

Argument from silence...

I don't know why you seem resistant to just saying that your god helped Noah using magic.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

No, it would not have been meteoric iron. Meteors are a result of the Flood, and therefore would not have existed prior to it.

Er, how does a flood on earth cause meteors, or more specifically meteorites?

You seem to think that these people would not have been smart enough to know how to work the earth.
You should read The Genius of Ancient Man by Don Landis. People were pretty smart back then.

And when exactly is 'back then'?

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

How does a flood on earth cause ... meteorites?

This from a guy who constantly challenges the Hydroplate theory.

How can you hope to reasonably oppose ideas you know nothing about?

 

[Stuu]

This from a guy who constantly challenges the Hydroplate theory.

Well, if you want to call it a theory, then I am one of many who have disproved it with evidence.

How can you hope to reasonably oppose ideas you know nothing about?

Where did the material that makes up a meteorite come from, according to the hydroplate fantasy?

Take care...

Stuart