"1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin"

Dan From Smithville · Mar 19, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I didn't say "significant effect", I said "telomeres are thought to affect longevity [which affects species survivability]".

Actually, longevity may have no effect on species survivability if they reproduce at a young enough age. Longevity would not be selected for, since it extends beyond the ability for natural selection to act on it.

It would be like buying a car that you end up keeping for 20 years and it works like new all the way to the end. You would not necessarily select for that trait, since it would require being able to predict that the car would last that long. The same sorts of problems arise in natural selection and longevity.

Dan From Smithville · Mar 19, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Yes, the loss "could" have occurred in a single step, or more than a single step. I'm looking (again) for facts, however, based on forensic evidence, not conjecture.

So you want to know the steps that lead to the loss and when they occurred? What would that get you? Since we share that trait with no other species of hominid, then it must have occurred post-divergence.

What conjecture are you talking about?

Dan From Smithville · Mar 19, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I've not established that 1% or more of genetic difference between species is a sizable amount of genetic difference?

I do not think anyone expected you too. It would not be something I would expect a non-scientist to be able to do.

I know of speciation that has occurred in snails that involves a change in only one gene. This is an exception, but it is documented. That would be less than 1%. There is no set scale that says .5% difference, not a different species, 1% difference, different species. It depends on what the differences are. Have you heard of gene duplication or genome duplication?

Dan From Smithville · Mar 19, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I put down macroevolution by mistake instead of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis would determine whether Christianity is viable/true, not rapid evolution, which does occur at many places....

Establishing abiogenesis would have no effect on Christianity. It would put to bed the silly notion that the Bible is infallible. That is about it. Christians could continue to believe in God and Christ on faith, just like they do today.

Tiberius · Mar 19, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I put down macroevolution by mistake instead of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis would determine whether Christianity is viable/true, not rapid evolution, which does occur at many places....

Okay, so, lemme make sure I've got it right. You intended to say, "My God set laws in place that abiogenesis seems to defy, including chirality, thermodynamics and entropy, etc."

Very well, let's go with that.

Could you clarify exactly how abiogenesis violates those?

BilliardsBall · Mar 20, 2019

Tiberius said:
Okay, so, lemme make sure I've got it right. You intended to say, "My God set laws in place that abiogenesis seems to defy, including chirality, thermodynamics and entropy, etc."

Very well, let's go with that.

Could you clarify exactly how abiogenesis violates those?

Can we start with chirality? Is it an easy problem to overcome, do you think? Is it likely that a suspension in liquid, in motion near vulcanism, would easily skirt chirality in the formation of the building blocks of life? And do you recognize that nearly zero of abiogenesis has been "solved" even without chirality?

Thanks for your patience with me, but these things are hidden from the wise and intelligent and revealed to infants (pride vs. humility).

BilliardsBall · Mar 20, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
I do not think anyone expected you too. It would not be something I would expect a non-scientist to be able to do.

I know of speciation that has occurred in snails that involves a change in only one gene. This is an exception, but it is documented. That would be less than 1%. There is no set scale that says .5% difference, not a different species, 1% difference, different species. It depends on what the differences are. Have you heard of gene duplication or genome duplication?

Yes, speciation could be far smaller changes than 1%. But do you wish to explain how 1% difference occurred between chimps and men in a relatively short period of evolution? (oldest apes 60-odd million years ago, etc.)

BilliardsBall · Mar 20, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
Establishing abiogenesis would have no effect on Christianity. It would put to bed the silly notion that the Bible is infallible. That is about it. Christians could continue to believe in God and Christ on faith, just like they do today.

Then based on all you've written to date, you should establish it, abiogenesis, to assist me from my delusions. Go ahead, I'm listening, sincerely!

By the way, I take the Bible as inerrant based on a variety of proofs ranging from the teleological and ontological to life changes, the excellencies of Christ, and yes, biology.

But . . . these things are hidden from the wise and intelligent and revealed to infants (pride vs. humility). You are very intelligent, as am I (red flags there for us both!)

tas8831 · Mar 20, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Can we start with chirality? Is it an easy problem to overcome, do you think? Is it likely that a suspension in liquid, in motion near vulcanism, would easily skirt chirality in the formation of the building blocks of life? And do you recognize that nearly zero of abiogenesis has been "solved" even without chirality?

Sure - first how about you explain what chirality is?

As a triple-degreed intellectual, I am surprised that you have not mastered the ability to do a simple lit search.

[Progress in Biological Chirality
, G.Palyi, C.Zucchi & L.Caglioti [Eds], Oxford:
Elsevier, 2004. pp.137-151]
Chapter 11
Chiral Crystal Faces of Common Rock-Forming Minerals

Mineral Surfaces, Geochemical Complexities,
and the Origins of Life

Lots more out there.

So surely you can now present us with research on the transmutation of silicates into bio-organic polymers as had to have happened when Jehovah created a fully-formed adult human middle eastern male from the dust of the ground?

Thanks for your patience with me, but these things are hidden from the wise and intelligent and revealed to infants (pride vs. humility).

Ironic.

tas8831 · Mar 20, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Yes, speciation could be far smaller changes than 1%. But do you wish to explain how 1% difference occurred between chimps and men in a relatively short period of evolution? (oldest apes 60-odd million years ago, etc.)

By known rates of mutation.
Very rough and crude calculation:

10 million years = ~500,000 generations (using an upper-range estimate of generation times of 20 years) yields 100,000,000 accumulated mutations. Since mutations are in effect "events", this number includes indels which can produce 10s, 100s,1000s, or more changes in bases per event.
So, plenty to spare.

tas8831 · Mar 20, 2019

By the way - we can expect any 2 random humans to differ by about 1.6%.

Young earth creationists must explain that level of divergence in only 6,000 years.

tas8831 · Mar 20, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
By the way, I take the Bible as inerrant based on a variety of proofs ranging from the teleological and ontological to life changes, the excellencies of Christ, and yes, biology.

Hilarious...

Dan From Smithville · Mar 20, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Yes, speciation could be far smaller changes than 1%. But do you wish to explain how 1% difference occurred between chimps and men in a relatively short period of evolution? (oldest apes 60-odd million years ago, etc.)

Why do I need to explain it? I am not claiming anything like you are claiming.

What I want to know is how you have determined that 60-odd million years is rapid evolution for hominids? That bears explaining.

The human genome and the chimpanzee genome are different. The differences have been quantified. From this, we see that the human and chimpanzee genomes have a high degree of similarity and that similarity is indicative of a shared origin. This is substantiated through the literature. You seem to think that you are challenging this, but what you are really challenging are the details. Details that would not refute the common ancestry, but would explain it better.

It is not simply a matter that one try to wave their hands and make the ERV evidence disappear with a facile explanation that viruses were in the same area and that they attack similar cell types. This would work if the same ERV DNA was in different locations in the respective genomes, but it is not. It is where it would be expected if a common ancestor were infected and then the descendants later diverged into different lineages.

That is part of the evidence that is used to establish common ancestry and that explanation remains valid.

I know. I know. I threw in something new. But someone has to. You are just spinning your wheels in the same mud.

Dan From Smithville · Mar 20, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Then based on all you've written to date, you should establish it, abiogenesis, to assist me from my delusions. Go ahead, I'm listening, sincerely!

By the way, I take the Bible as inerrant based on a variety of proofs ranging from the teleological and ontological to life changes, the excellencies of Christ, and yes, biology.

But . . . these things are hidden from the wise and intelligent and revealed to infants (pride vs. humility). You are very intelligent, as am I (red flags there for us both!)

I have not claimed to have established any hypothesis of abiogenesis. Your claim is disingenuous and outside of the facts.

I know you believe the Bible is inerrant and that you believe you have proof. I know you have a lot of assumptions that you like to think of as established fact.

I do not think that God does not want me to use my intellect. I do not understand why anyone would think that.

Tiberius · Mar 20, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Can we start with chirality? Is it an easy problem to overcome, do you think? Is it likely that a suspension in liquid, in motion near vulcanism, would easily skirt chirality in the formation of the building blocks of life? And do you recognize that nearly zero of abiogenesis has been "solved" even without chirality?

Thanks for your patience with me, but these things are hidden from the wise and intelligent and revealed to infants (pride vs. humility).

You haven't actually explained why chirality is a problem...

Astrophile · Mar 20, 2019

Tiberius said:
Okay, so, lemme make sure I've got it right. You intended to say, "My God set laws in place that abiogenesis seems to defy, including chirality, thermodynamics and entropy, etc."

Very well, let's go with that.

Could you clarify exactly how abiogenesis violates those?

This has always puzzled me. Why should a God who wants a life-bearing universe create a universe in which the laws of physics make abiogenesis impossible?

Astrophile · Mar 20, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Yes, speciation could be far smaller changes than 1%. But do you wish to explain how 1% difference occurred between chimps and men in a relatively short period of evolution? (oldest apes 60-odd million years ago, etc.)

According to Oldest Fossil of Ape Discovered , the oldest known fossil of an ape is 25.2 million years old (late Oligocene), and the divergence between apes and Old World monkeys occurred about 26 to 27 million years ago.

BilliardsBall · Mar 21, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
Why do I need to explain it? I am not claiming anything like you are claiming.

What I want to know is how you have determined that 60-odd million years is rapid evolution for hominids? That bears explaining.

The human genome and the chimpanzee genome are different. The differences have been quantified. From this, we see that the human and chimpanzee genomes have a high degree of similarity and that similarity is indicative of a shared origin. This is substantiated through the literature. You seem to think that you are challenging this, but what you are really challenging are the details. Details that would not refute the common ancestry, but would explain it better.

It is not simply a matter that one try to wave their hands and make the ERV evidence disappear with a facile explanation that viruses were in the same area and that they attack similar cell types. This would work if the same ERV DNA was in different locations in the respective genomes, but it is not. It is where it would be expected if a common ancestor were infected and then the descendants later diverged into different lineages.

That is part of the evidence that is used to establish common ancestry and that explanation remains valid.

I know. I know. I threw in something new. But someone has to. You are just spinning your wheels in the same mud.

Typing your word "new" at random" n (1 of 26) times e (1 of 26) times w (1 of 26) on my generous keyboard (26 characters and not 50 or more).

= 1:26^3

30-plus million bases = "only 1% " difference between chimps and people in 10-60 million years . . .

Each base = 1 of X

Each mutation = Y bases

Each negative mutation = decreased odds of success

Each animal inheriting correct mutation that dies before breeding = decreased odds of success

Each recessive mutation = delayed time for correction = decreased odds of success

Don't be so wise, be an infant.

BilliardsBall · Mar 21, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
I have not claimed to have established any hypothesis of abiogenesis. Your claim is disingenuous and outside of the facts.

I know you believe the Bible is inerrant and that you believe you have proof. I know you have a lot of assumptions that you like to think of as established fact.

I do not think that God does not want me to use my intellect. I do not understand why anyone would think that.

I KNOW why you haven't claimed any established hypothesis of abiogenesis. It's because science has none after a century of avid, extensive, peer-reviewed research. That's one of several reasons.

I believe in Bible inerrancy based on cosmology, teleology, anthropology, ontology, biology, life changes, the words of Christ, human history, etc. and I know you don't want to hear anything I have to say here to explain any of these areas to you.

I KNOW God wants you to use your intellect, if you want verses on this principle. I quoted "hidden from [overly, pridefully] wise and revealed to [humble, childlike in obedience] infants for a reason.

BilliardsBall · Mar 21, 2019

Tiberius said:
You haven't actually explained why chirality is a problem...

You need me to explain it to you, how chirality decreases the odds of certain vital things from forming easily, spontaneously, even in an open system, that are vital to abiogenesis?

I don't believe you!

"1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin"

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member