Why I believe God Created Life.

[Looncall]

Almost all people who buy lottery tickets never win. The fact that a few do win the lottery shouldn't cause you to invest in lottery tickets. Mutations are far more likely to be fatal, or weaken an organism than to impart anything beneficial. And as Dr. Lönnig's research proved, mutations do not create anything new.

Still harping on your pet crackpot, eh? It is well known that mutations sometimes do create new features.

I am amazed by the barefaced falsehoods of the religious.

 

[viole]

Almost all people who buy lottery tickets never win. The fact that a few do win the lottery shouldn't cause you to invest in lottery tickets. Mutations are far more likely to be fatal, or weaken an organism than to impart anything beneficial. And as Dr. Lönnig's research proved, mutations do not create anything new.

If I won the lottery and my ability to win lotteries were heritable, I would surely recommend my progeny to invest in the lottery. Who wouldn't?

You are not focused. I am not talking of big wins here. I am talking of tiny wins which are directly transmitted to all offsprings, this is one of my premises. Always keep this is mind, because it is fundamental. This is how lucky strikes, no matter how small, remain.

As concern Dr. Lönnig's research, he refers to 100 years of history of mutations and artificial breeding. 100 years is about 20 or 30 generations of dogs. Just to be generous, let us suppose it is 100 generations of dogs.

To expect a new species of dogs after 100 generations is risible. It just gives us valuable information about Dr. Lönnig's qualifications in biology.

But let's forget about this. Let me grant you that evolution might not have occurred.

What I want to know is whether my little algorithm is capable of producing complexity without designer. In principle. Let me outline it for you again:

1) Small random mutations (chance): the main driver of fresh new information, either useful or not (mostly not)
2) Advantage of survival and reproduction if the tiny mutation is useful in the current environment (not chance)
3) Transmission of the mutation to the offsprings which will enjoy the same advantage towards reproduction and transmission of the same mutation (not chance)
4) Disappearance of the organisms which do not have the useful mutation (not chance)

Can you show me what parts of it are logically impossible?

I would like to read your own thoughts, rusra02. No quotes from the Bible, if possible. Thanks.


Ciao

- viole

 

[rusra02]

If I won the lottery and my ability to win lotteries were heritable, I would surely recommend my progeny to invest in the lottery. Who wouldn't?

You are not focused. I am not talking of big wins here. I am talking of tiny wins which are directly transmitted to all offsprings, this is one of my premises. Always keep this is mind, because it is fundamental. This is how lucky strikes, no matter how small, remain.

As concern Dr. Lönnig's research, he refers to 100 years of history of mutations and artificial breeding. 100 years is about 20 or 30 generations of dogs. Just to be generous, let us suppose it is 100 generations of dogs.

To expect a new species of dogs after 100 generations is risible. It just gives us valuable information about Dr. Lönnig's qualifications in biology.

But let's forget about this. Let me grant you that evolution might not have occurred.

What I want to know is whether my little algorithm is capable of producing complexity without designer. In principle. Let me outline it for you again:

1) Small random mutations (chance): the main driver of fresh new information, either useful or not (mostly not)
2) Advantage of survival and reproduction if the tiny mutation is useful in the current environment (not chance)
3) Transmission of the mutation to the offsprings which will enjoy the same advantage towards reproduction and transmission of the same mutation (not chance)
4) Disappearance of the organisms which do not have the useful mutation (not chance)

Can you show me what parts of it are logically impossible?

I would like to read your own thoughts, rusra02. No quotes from the Bible, if possible. Thanks.


Ciao

- viole

Actual mutation research has been done, using millions of plants. The result: Failure to confirm mutations as a viable mechanism for supposed evolution:
"According to the premises of the synthetic theory, explaining the origin of the entire world of organisms predominantly by selected mutations, a worldwide revolution in plant breeding research had been expected in the late 1930s, which was reinforced by Nobel laureate Josef H. Muller in 1946 especially for first decades after the Second World War.
However, due to the fact that:
(a) “many programmes failed...to produce anything useful”,
(b) “almost all mutants distinguish themselves by negative selection values”,
(c) “all kinds of mutations are even more frequently lethal and more strongly
diminishing vitality and fertility in animals”,
(d) the overall results “have been rather meager in relation to the efforts
expended”,
(e) “in spite of an enormous financial expenditure... [mutation breeding]
widely proved to be a failure”,
(f) “the objective of practical plant breeding...could not be realized” neither
by “macro-mutations” nor by “micro-mutations”,
(g) none of the modifying measures applied could help fulfilling “the ultimate
hope of obtaining more of the ‘better’ mutants”
Full text is here

 

[rusra02]

"It is well known that mutations sometimes do create new features."

Example, please and source?

 

[rusra02]

So then God is a complex being that did not need a creator... So that only affirms my point. Just because something is complex, does not necessarily mean it had a creator.

The true God is a unique Person, and is not to be compared with anything he has created. God himself asks the question "To whom can you liken me to make me his equal?” says the Holy One. *“Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing." (Isaiah 40:25,26) as the grand Creator without any beginning or end, I believe Jehovah is the ultimate Source of all created things, and ultimately one must have such a Source. So your comparison fails when talking about the true God.

 

[viole]

Actual mutation research has been done, using millions of plants. The result: Failure to confirm mutations as a viable mechanism for supposed evolution:
"According to the premises of the synthetic theory, explaining the origin of the entire world of organisms predominantly by selected mutations, a worldwide revolution in plant breeding research had been expected in the late 1930s, which was reinforced by Nobel laureate Josef H. Muller in 1946 especially for first decades after the Second World War.
However, due to the fact that:
(a) “many programmes failed...to produce anything useful”,
(b) “almost all mutants distinguish themselves by negative selection values”,
(c) “all kinds of mutations are even more frequently lethal and more strongly
diminishing vitality and fertility in animals”,
(d) the overall results “have been rather meager in relation to the efforts
expended”,
(e) “in spite of an enormous financial expenditure... [mutation breeding]
widely proved to be a failure”,
(f) “the objective of practical plant breeding...could not be realized” neither
by “macro-mutations” nor by “micro-mutations”,
(g) none of the modifying measures applied could help fulfilling “the ultimate
hope of obtaining more of the ‘better’ mutants”
Full text is here

You still do not focus.

I conceded the evolution never took place, for the sake of discussion. We are talking of complexity without designer here and how it could be implemented.

So, once again, which ones of the steps I depicted is impossible? How about the whole sequence? What makes it implausible to be able to generate arbitrary complexity via these mechanisms? Let me add a fifth step in order to make the iterations more explicit.

1) Small random mutations (chance): the main driver of fresh new information, either useful or not (mostly not)
2) Advantage of survival and reproduction if the tiny mutation is useful in the current environment (not chance)
3) Transmission of the mutation to the offsprings which will enjoy the same advantage towards reproduction and transmission of the same mutation (not chance)
4) Disappearance of the organisms which do not have the useful mutation (not chance)
5) Goto 1)

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

So your comparison fails when talking about the true God.

Only because you refuse to discard your circular reasoning.
Once your fallacy is removed it is a whole different ball game.

Are you capable of even peeking out your cozy little box?
Or is your faith in your god so weak you cannot?

 

[rusra02]

You still do not focus.

I conceded the evolution never took place, for the sake of discussion. We are talking of complexity without designer here and how it could be implemented.

So, once again, which ones of the steps I depicted is impossible? How about the whole sequence? What makes it implausible to be able to generate arbitrary complexity via these mechanisms? Let me add a fifth step in order to make the iterations more explicit.

1) Small random mutations (chance): the main driver of fresh new information, either useful or not (mostly not)
2) Advantage of survival and reproduction if the tiny mutation is useful in the current environment (not chance)
3) Transmission of the mutation to the offsprings which will enjoy the same advantage towards reproduction and transmission of the same mutation (not chance)
4) Disappearance of the organisms which do not have the useful mutation (not chance)
5) Goto 1)

Ciao

- viole

I'm afraid it is you that is not focusing. The quote I gave show that beneficial mutations are so few, and harmful ones so many, that such mutations could never account for the complex living creatures everywhere on earth, air, and sea.

 

[rusra02]

Only because you refuse to discard your circular reasoning.
Once your fallacy is removed it is a whole different ball game.

Are you capable of even peeking out your cozy little box?
Or is your faith in your god so weak you cannot?

I would have to blind my eyes to all the evidence that there is a grand Creator and God, to disbelieve as you apparently do. (Romans 1:20)

 

[outhouse]

Your changing nothing at all.


creation will still be outlawed from children in school.

And Evolution looked at as fact, and taught in every major university around the world as higher learning.

You have not refuted a single thing that will change the facts of evolution

 

[outhouse]

1930s,

1946

Does it embarrass you that you are so desperate that you have to quote mine almost 100 year old work to find support on your pet hypothesis, which others have shown is nothing more then a perversion of credible science???????????????????

 

[starless]

Does it embarrass you that you are so desperate that you have to quote mine almost 100 year old work to find support on your pet hypothesis, which others have shown is nothing more then a perversion of credible science???????????????????

Still better than most of his other quotes from the time of Ancient Rome.

 

[viole]

I'm afraid it is you that is not focusing. The quote I gave show that beneficial mutations are so few, and harmful ones so many, that such mutations could never account for the complex living creatures everywhere on earth, air, and sea.

Forget life on earth. I am granting you that life on earth has been created by God in its current form. That children played with velociraptors and saber-tooth tigers had a vegan diet, as your holy book suggests. Whatever.

What I am interest in is whether my little algorithm to create complexity without designer would run. In principle. Maybe on another planet.

So, what do you think? Which step is controversial?

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

I would have to blind my eyes to all the evidence that there is a grand Creator and God, to disbelieve as you apparently do. (Romans 1:20)

You really should stop bearing false witness.
I hear your god dislikes such behaviour.


now since you are not interested in honest discussion and much prefer your fantasy land over reality, I shall stop commenting on your posts so you will not be so tempted to anger your favourite deity.


Have a nice day.

 

[rusra02]

Does it embarrass you that you are so desperate that you have to quote mine almost 100 year old work to find support on your pet hypothesis, which others have shown is nothing more then a perversion of credible science???????????????????

What are you talking about? What quotes?

 

[rusra02]

You really should stop bearing false witness.
I hear your god dislikes such behaviour.


now since you are not interested in honest discussion and much prefer your fantasy land over reality, I shall stop commenting on your posts so you will not be so tempted to anger your favourite deity.


Have a nice day.

I think Matthew 10:24,25 is applicable to your ridicule.

 

[rusra02]

Forget life on earth. I am granting you that life on earth has been created by God in its current form. That children played with velociraptors and saber-tooth tigers had a vegan diet, as your holy book suggests. Whatever.

What I am interest in is whether my little algorithm to create complexity without designer would run. In principle. Maybe on another planet.

So, what do you think? Which step is controversial?

Ciao

- viole

To repeat an earlier post that I hope is clearly stated: "I'm afraid it is you that is not focusing. The quote I gave show that beneficial mutations are so few, and harmful ones so many, that such mutations could never account for the complex living creatures everywhere on earth, air, and sea."
Mutations do not produce any new creatures. So complex information systems necessary for life (DNA) can never arise by chance, and once created, can never by chance create new organs or appendages.

 

[viole]

To repeat an earlier post that I hope is clearly stated: "I'm afraid it is you that is not focusing. The quote I gave show that beneficial mutations are so few, and harmful ones so many, that such mutations could never account for the complex living creatures everywhere on earth, air, and sea."
Mutations do not produce any new creatures. So complex information systems necessary for life (DNA) can never arise by chance, and once created, can never by chance create new organs or appendages.

And I told you to forget life on earth, for a moment, and let us just concentrate on the viability of the algorithm. As I told you, I grant you here that creationism is true on earth.

If good mutations are rare but remain for ever when they happen, because of heredity, don't you think that a huge accumulation of them, one on top of the other, can create arbitrary complexity given arbitrarily long spans of time, or even eternity?

In principle, I do not see a problem with that. Or do you think that there is an invisible force that blocks complexity up to a point?

In other words, if this maximum in complexity is reached, what prevents the next rare mutation to exceed it, given that it is completely random?

Ciao

- viole

 

[rusra02]

And I told you to forget life on earth, for a moment, and let us just concentrate on the viability of the algorithm. As I told you, I grant you here that creationism is true on earth.

If good mutations are rare but remain for ever when they happen, because of heredity, don't you think that a huge accumulation of them, one on top of the other, can create arbitrary complexity given arbitrarily long spans of time, or even eternity?

In principle, I do not see a problem with that. Or do you think that there is an invisible force that blocks complexity up to a point?

In other words, if this maximum in complexity is reached, what prevents the next rare mutation to exceed it, given that it is completely random?

Ciao

- viole

The empirical evidence answers no. Here is a quote showing why from Lönnig's paper entitled "Mutation breeding, evolution, and the law of recurrent variation":
"Additionally, the observation that none of the different methods of mutagenesis − from delicate experiments looking for optimal mutation frequencies in plant breeding to the most massive mutation inductions − have ever changed the fact of selection limits (detected for all the plant and animal species so far investigated), is in agreement with the facts just mentioned as well as with the saturation curves shown above (43).
One of the best contemporary population geneticists, Daniel L. Hartl, has summed up the question of selection limits as follows (32):
“Progress under artificial selection cannot go on forever, of course. As noted earlier, the population will eventually reach a selection limit, or plateau, after which it will no longer respond to selection. ...However, many experimental populations that have reached a selection limit readily respond to reverse selection.”
And some years later Hartl und Jones have emphasized this empirical fact again (33):
“Population improvement by means of artificial selection cannot continue indefinitely. A population may respond to selection until its mean is many standard deviations different from the mean of the original population, but eventually the population reaches a selection limit at which successive generations show no further improvement.”

 

[Mycroft]

The empirical evidence answers no. Here is a quote showing why from Lönnig's paper entitled "Mutation breeding, evolution, and the law of recurrent variation":
"Additionally, the observation that none of the different methods of mutagenesis − from delicate experiments looking for optimal mutation frequencies in plant breeding to the most massive mutation inductions − have ever changed the fact of selection limits (detected for all the plant and animal species so far investigated), is in agreement with the facts just mentioned as well as with the saturation curves shown above (43).
One of the best contemporary population geneticists, Daniel L. Hartl, has summed up the question of selection limits as follows (32):
“Progress under artificial selection cannot go on forever, of course. As noted earlier, the population will eventually reach a selection limit, or plateau, after which it will no longer respond to selection. ...However, many experimental populations that have reached a selection limit readily respond to reverse selection.”
And some years later Hartl und Jones have emphasized this empirical fact again (33):
“Population improvement by means of artificial selection cannot continue indefinitely. A population may respond to selection until its mean is many standard deviations different from the mean of the original population, but eventually the population reaches a selection limit at which successive generations show no further improvement.”

Your argument is academic and pointless. It is clear to me, having read everything that you don't understand evolution and you don't want to understand it either. You simply want to go along blissfully in your chosen belief. Which is fine. But please do not attempt to assert it as any kind of fact unless you have observable, testable, reproducable, verifiable evidence.