Why do Evolutionists not like to actually debate Evolution and rely on personal attacks?

[Falvlun]

I don't think so. You admit many more mutations are unsuccessful and I agree. The successful mutations must be trillions. Then the unsuccessful ones are too numerous to count. All this in how many years?

Approximately 3.6 billion years. Can you even begin to comprehend how much time that is? I can't. It boggles my mind.

As for mutation rates, you should read this wiki:

Mutation Rate

 

[Ouroboros]

In which scope exactly? Bacteria go through lots of generations in a minute. And life is fairly ancient as of now.

"Bacteria mutates much more than previously thought" Bacteria Mutate Much More Than Previously Thought

And I know from doing some brewing and storing my own yeast that you shouldn't use more than 7 generations of yeast because of mutations. Even the yeast labs that provide yeast to the big breweries make that claim.
How many generations should I use my yeast?

We recommend 6-10 generations per strain. Three main reasons yeast should be replaced on a regular interval are bacterial contamination, yeast cell mutation, and yeast fatigue.
Bacterial contamination is largely responsible for off flavors. Bacteria grow at an exponential rate in comparison to the yeast.
Yeast cell mutation. Yeast cells will adapt to their environment, this could dramatically or subtly change the characteristics of the beer.
Yeast fatigue. Beer is a hostile environment for the yeast. Healthy yeast requires oxygen and food (malt). CO2 and alcohol are detrimental to the overall health of the yeast.

From White Labs, one of the largest provider of professional yeast. They don't know, do they? They've only worked with it for years, and years, and years, and years...

 

[outhouse]

"Bacteria mutates much more than previously thought" Bacteria Mutate Much More Than Previously Thought

And I know from doing some brewing and storing my own yeast that you shouldn't use more than 7 generations of yeast because of mutations. Even the yeast labs that provide yeast to the big breweries make that claim.
How many generations should I use my yeast?


From White Labs, one of the largest provider of professional yeast. They don't know, do they? They've only worked with it for years, and years, and years, and years...

But a dog doesnt turn into a cat


And they wonder why

 

[yoda89]

 

[Ouroboros]

But a dog doesnt turn into a cat

No they don't since there are many generations of mutations in between them. They are both mammals. They both have the same fundamental anatomy.

Horse and donkey have different chromosome count and would be considered different species, but they can mate and have offspring. (If I remember correctly)

Nature and biology is very different from what people really think. It's fluid and continuous, not discontinuous the way our mind tends to organize the world.

Don't forget about the crocoduck. No one has seen one, so therefore God.

 

[Shermana]

Approximately 3.6 billion years. Can you even begin to comprehend how much time that is? I can't. It boggles my mind.

As for mutation rates, you should read this wiki:

Mutation Rate

We're talking hundreds of millions of years for land animals. And that's lightning fast, that's some extreme optimism I'd say. A lot of blind faith in a rapid fire chain of nonstop beneficial/successfully-adaptational mutations.

Ewert

Abstract

Wilf and Ewens argue in a recent paper that there is plenty of time for evolution to occur. They base this claim on a mathematical model in which beneficial mutations accumulate simultaneously and independently, thus allowing changes that require a large number of mutations to evolve over comparatively short time periods. Because changes evolve independently and in parallel rather than sequentially, their model scales logarithmically rather than exponentially. This approach does not accurately reflect biological evolution, however, for two main reasons. First, within their model are implicit information sources, including the equivalent of a highly informed oracle that prophesies when a mutation is “correct,” thus accelerating the search by the evolu- tionary process. Natural selection, in contrast, does not have access to information about future benefits of a particular muta- tion, or where in the global fitness landscape a particular mutation is relative to a particular target. It can only assess mutations based on their current effect on fitness in the local fitness landscape. Thus the presence of this oracle makes their model radically different from a real biological search through fitness space. Wilf and Ewens also make unrealistic biological assumptions that, in effect, simplify the search. They assume no epistasis between beneficial mutations, no linkage between loci, and an unreal- istic population size and base mutation rate, thus increasing the pool of beneficial mutations to be searched. They neglect the effects of genetic drift on the probability of fixation and the negative effects of simultaneously accumulating deleterious muta- tions. Finally, in their model they represent each genetic locus as a single letter. By doing so, they ignore the enormous sequence complexity of actual genetic loci (typically hundreds or thousands of nucleotides long), and vastly oversimplify the search for functional variants. In similar fashion, they assume that each evolutionary “advance” requires a change to just one locus, despite the clear evidence that most biological functions are the product of multiple gene products working together. Ignoring these biological realities infuses considerable active information into their model and eases the model’s evolutionary process.

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2012.4/BIO-C.2012.4

I should make a whole thread on this.

 

[Alceste]

Sorry, I'm not understanding your point here. :sorry1:

Evolution doesn't say that every single individual will have the same abilities.

Nor does it say that some abilities that have been adapted for can't be used for other things. I'm sure evolution didn't select for our dextrous hands so that we can play instruments, but the fact that we have dextrous hands allows us to play instruments.

On top of that, we created those instruments specifically for the purpose of being played by us and making sounds that appeal to us.

 

[McBell]

It must be the worst, how can you believe is something that you don't even know about?

I do not know.
How about you ask theists, they have been doing it for centuries.

 

[Alceste]

I think having a fast hold on believing evolution is all that created the world requires an amazing faith that most mutations have been good efficient and fast.

Has anyone calculated the number of selected mutations just one organism required?

No, that is not at all necessary. Those of us who are interested in biology are aware that the vast majority of species that have ever existed have gone extinct due to their failure to adapt well enough or fast enough. All our fossil evidence supports this observation.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We're talking hundreds of millions of years for land animals. And that's lightning fast, that's some extreme optimism I'd say. A lot of blind faith in a rapid fire chain of nonstop beneficial/successfully-adaptational mutations.

Ewert



Ewert

I should make a whole thread on this.

I thought so. The second author is Dembski. I mentioned him earlier.

 

[savagewind]

No, that is not at all necessary. Those of us who are interested in biology are aware that the vast majority of species that have ever existed have gone extinct due to their failure to adapt well enough or fast enough. All our fossil evidence supports this observation.

Well, I don't know about that. I have heard evolution had little to do with many extinctions. It was man what done it. :help:

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, I don't know about that. I have heard evolution had little to do with many extinctions. It was man what done it. :help:

True enough. Many extinctions are a consequence of human effect upon the environment.

So?

 

[savagewind]

True enough. Many extinctions are a consequence of human effect upon the environment.

So?

I'm debating.

 

[Alceste]

Well, I don't know about that. I have heard evolution had little to do with many extinctions. It was man what done it. :help:

We've only been around a relatively short time. Almost everything that has ever lived on this planet has gone extinct because it failed to adapt to its environment well enough or quickly enough. Haven't you ever heard of the dinosaurs? The Cambrian explosion? None of that stuff? We don't find fossils of stuff that's still around. It's all long gone.

 

[Alceste]

I'm debating.

A creature that goes extinct because of humans has failed to adapt well enough or quickly enough to the presence of humans.

 

[savagewind]

A creature that goes extinct because of humans has failed to adapt well enough or quickly enough to the presence of humans.

That is true. But more precisely it might be a creature that goes extinct because of guns has failed to adapt well enough or quickly enough to the presence of guns.

Thank you for talking to me

 

[Alceste]

That is true. But more precisely it might be a creature that goes extinct because of guns has failed to adapt well enough or quickly enough to the presence of guns.

Thank you for talking to me

Nobody's shooting the polar bears. They're starving to death because their habitat is melting. That's because of us and our carbon emissions. With or without guns, we are part of the environment. Of all the species that have gone and are going extinct because of humans, only a fraction went extinct because we ate them all. We encroach on their habitat and they can not adapt quickly enough to survive.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

:biglaugh: "Creationist science"... I just peed a little.

 

[Iti oj]

Nobody's shooting the polar bears. They're starving to death because their habitat is melting. That's because of us and our carbon emissions. With or without guns, we are part of the environment. Of all the species that have gone and are going extinct because of humans, only a fraction went extinct because we ate them all. We encroach on their habitat and they can not adapt quickly enough to survive.

And of all the exticnt species only a minute fraction have become so because of or even durring mankind

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Look, Kilgore Trout, I think we have finally a found a creationist who understands evolution.

OK, well, at least a former creationist who understands evolution. But that's the only kind I've ever found, so I guess it'll have to do.

Yeah, I noticed the same thing. I think it points to the fact that if someone is capable of understanding evolution, actually learns how it works, and is honest, then it is impossible to deny.

Sadly, there seem to be a worrisome number of people who aren't capable of understanding it, don't learn what it is, and/or are not honest.