Questions for Atheist

[lewisnotmiller]

404 error. Many atheist scientists will tell you eye color is natural selection.

After the original color was introduced to the species via mutation.
But whatevs...feel free to link me to any of these athiest scientists.

 

[Shad]

Well, natural selection is accepted by Christians as it was discovered by Christian Alfred Russel Wallace.

Wallace drops Christianity in his 20s.

 

[james bond]

After the original color was introduced to the species via mutation.
But whatevs...feel free to link me to any of these athiest scientists.

Too lazy. I mean you. I'm not the atheist. So much for this topic ha ha.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Too lazy. I mean you. I'm not the atheist. So much for this topic ha ha.

I'm too lazy? You stated that 'many atheist scientists will tell you that eye colour is natural selection'. How am I being lazy by asking you to link to ONE.

I have met people here who are honest enough to defend their own arguments without resorting to deception, and even some honest enough to own up when their argument has deficiencies.
You appear to fit in neither bucket.

But by all means, try to justify your complete intellectual dishonesty by palming it off as my laziness.

While you're at it, perhaps you could indicate your views on this;
One Common Ancestor Behind Blue Eyes

The point you appear to be missing is that many atheist scientists WILL tell you that eye colour is natural selection in terms of it being passed from generation to generation. Just as evolution does not explain the origin of life, this does not explain where the initial colour came from. So unless an atheist scientist somewhere has said that eye colour is natural selection and DID NOT REQUIRE MUTATION, I have no frigging idea what point you are trying to make.

Pithy throw away lines are only cool if they are accurate and cutting. Yours was neither. Just frustrating, since you post on a debate site and are unwilling to address simple questions.
Whatever. Hide from whatever you need to, not like I can make you more intellectually rigorous. That's your choice.

 

[james bond]

Wallace drops Christianity in his 20s.

Didn't know that. Another one bit the dust?

 

[james bond]

I'm too lazy? You stated that 'many atheist scientists will tell you that eye colour is natural selection'. How am I being lazy by asking you to link to ONE.

I have met people here who are honest enough to defend their own arguments without resorting to deception, and even some honest enough to own up when their argument has deficiencies.
You appear to fit in neither bucket.

But by all means, try to justify your complete intellectual dishonesty by palming it off as my laziness.

While you're at it, perhaps you could indicate your views on this;
One Common Ancestor Behind Blue Eyes

The point you appear to be missing is that many atheist scientists WILL tell you that eye colour is natural selection in terms of it being passed from generation to generation. Just as evolution does not explain the origin of life, this does not explain where the initial colour came from. So unless an atheist scientist somewhere has said that eye colour is natural selection and DID NOT REQUIRE MUTATION, I have no frigging idea what point you are trying to make.

Pithy throw away lines are only cool if they are accurate and cutting. Yours was neither. Just frustrating, since you post on a debate site and are unwilling to address simple questions.
Whatever. Hide from whatever you need to, not like I can make you more intellectually rigorous. That's your choice.

You didn't explain you wanted to know where it came from "originally." I thought you were talking about eye color as part of natural selection. And you stated it wasn't, but mutation. I would have said God then. So, am I suppose to find the original ancestor based on atheist evolution beliefs?

Anyway, here it is from the website I learned about evolution from.

"Both quantitative (e.g., height) and qualitative (e.g., eye color) traits may be influenced by multiple loci and these loci may interact with one another and may not follow the simple rules of Mendelian dominace*."

* Gene version with an effect that is observed even when paired with a non-identical gene version in the same individual.

Misconceptions about evolution

Doesn't sound like mutation, but something that has a more complex answer.

DNA - Evolution at the scene of the crime
Evolution at the scene of the crime

What do creation scientists say?

"Gregor Mendel, often known as the father of genetics, was an Austrian monk responsible for his monastery's garden. He became curious as to how traits were passed on through generations of hybrid plants. Mendel started to experiment with the peas in his garden (Miller, p 264).

He crossbred two homozygous (purebred) plants with opposite traits. For example, he crossed a purebred tall pea plant with a purebred short pea plant. His results showed that every hybrid was tall. Mendel came to the conclusion that some traits are dominant and others are recessive. Mendel repeated his experiment, but crossbred two hybrid plants instead of two purebreds. This resulted in three quarters of the plants displaying the dominant gene, tallness, and one quarter showing the recessive gene, shortness. He concluded that the dominant trait had only masked the recessive trait before and the responsible inherited units segregated independently, thus, making it possible for a recessive trait to show up in the second generation (Miller, pp 265-266).

Punnett Squares

A Punnett square. The parents, in this case, are hybrids.
A Punnett square is a tool used to determine the possible gene outcomes of a cross between two parents when their genetic combinations are known. It was named after Reginald Punnett, an English geneticist [9].
First off, the Punnett square starts off as a square divided into four different boxes. The types of gametes produced by one parent are put on the top side of the square and the other parent's possible gametes are put on the left side of the square. The dominant alleles are written with a capital letter and the recessive alleles are written with the same lower case letter. The genetic outcomes can then be predicted by matching up the alleles in the different squares. Those organisms that have the same two of the same alleles for a particular trait are called homozygous, and those that have two different traits are called heterozygous (Miller, p 269)."

Population genetics
"
The four processes
Natural selection
Main article: Natural selection
Natural selection is also known as the survival of the fittest. It is an observable effect of nature and is considered a verifiable mechanism responsible for biological evolution. Natural selection does not create new traits in organisms: it only favors the spreading of advantageous pre-existing traits, and disfavors the spreading of disadvantageous pre-existing traits. In other words, selection is the inbreeding of favored genes, which reduces the diversity of genetic information in a population, and (in the absence of some other source for genetic diversity to outpace selection) produces a purebreed or genetic homozygote for the trait in question. The result is that organisms become highly tailored to their environment over time, and harmful mutations are kept from spreading throughout the population.

Genetic drift
Main article: Genetic drift
Genetic drift is the establishment of certain alleles due to random sampling of the gene pool.[7] Genetic drift refers to the net decrease in genetic variability and heterozygosity over time. In stable populations, genetic drift causes genetic variation to decrease significantly more quickly than mutation can add new variation. Genetic Drift is a stocastic or random genetic process.[8]

Mutation
Main article: Mutation
A mutation is any spontaneous heritable change in DNA sequence that contributes to genetic variability.

Gene flow
Main article: Gene flow
Gene flow is the transfer of alleles or genes from one population to another. In other definition, is the propagation of genes from one breeding population to another by migration, possibly leading to changes in allele frequency. The overall effect of gene flow is that it hinders the genetic divergence between populations and increases the genetic variation within populations.[9]"

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You didn't explain you wanted to know where it came from "originally." I thought you were talking about eye color as part of natural selection. And you stated it wasn't, but mutation. I would have said God then. So, am I suppose to find the original ancestor based on atheist evolution beliefs?

Man, you have this habit of moving the conversation sideways...
To recap;

I said;
Mutation is only 1 of multiple drivers of evolutionary change, and is probably the least of them.
Whilst many mutations are harmful, others are not inpactful (eg. eye colour) and even more rarely convey circumstantial benefit.

You responded;
I would say eye color is natural selection, not mutation.

==========================================

Now you are saying that I did not specify 'originally'. I have no idea why you are making these arbitrary barriers though.
Consider : Any mutation is a deviance from source. They are not common in evolutionary terms, since many are harmful, and therefore die out, or are at best benign, at which case they are commonly (not not necessarily) bred out.

Eye colour is an example of a mutation which was introduced to our species via mutation. Far as I can tell, it's a benign mutation (excluding examples like albinism) which has become part of our 'normal' human variance. Blue eyes are passed down as part of the normal genetic traits passed from parent to child (simplistically) and (as you have shown) there is more to it than mere genetic dominance, although that is generally what we teach children I guess.

So, at once, eye colour is both a mutation in terms of original cause, and an inheritable trait. There is no separate argument to be had here. I honestly don't know what the Biblical explanation for variance in eye colours is. If you know, feel free to enlighten me.

 

[Shad]

Didn't know that. Another one bit the dust?

What was your source and do you fact check your source?

 

[james bond]

What was your source and do you fact check your source?

You're too vague. How come you never answer my questions and instead accuse me of fact checking my sources? That's really insulting. Did I ask you to fact check yours?

I knew it was a period of time where the beliefs of Christian scientists were coming under great pressure.

It's a waste of time to go through these games. I do not have time to spend with people who just do these tit-for-tat games. I thought you had something to contribute. I'll just put you on ignore again. We are done.

 

[james bond]

Man, you have this habit of moving the conversation sideways...
To recap;

I said;
Mutation is only 1 of multiple drivers of evolutionary change, and is probably the least of them.
Whilst many mutations are harmful, others are not inpactful (eg. eye colour) and even more rarely convey circumstantial benefit.

You responded;
I would say eye color is natural selection, not mutation.

==========================================

Now you are saying that I did not specify 'originally'. I have no idea why you are making these arbitrary barriers though.
Consider : Any mutation is a deviance from source. They are not common in evolutionary terms, since many are harmful, and therefore die out, or are at best benign, at which case they are commonly (not not necessarily) bred out.

Eye colour is an example of a mutation which was introduced to our species via mutation. Far as I can tell, it's a benign mutation (excluding examples like albinism) which has become part of our 'normal' human variance. Blue eyes are passed down as part of the normal genetic traits passed from parent to child (simplistically) and (as you have shown) there is more to it than mere genetic dominance, although that is generally what we teach children I guess.

So, at once, eye colour is both a mutation in terms of original cause, and an inheritable trait. There is no separate argument to be had here. I honestly don't know what the Biblical explanation for variance in eye colours is. If you know, feel free to enlighten me.

Wrong. You're still stuck on your original statement ha ha. I just got through posting both evolution and creation science links. Original eye color is an example of gene flow and which is an expression of one gene's dominance over another in their traits. What causes the different variations are alleles. In addition to that, we have the effects of natural selection which I was referring to. Here's what about.com (evolution website) says about it (I found this link afterward, but this is where I got what atheist scientists state on eye color and natural selection from):

"This direct sunlight, with ultraviolet rays, and the warm temperatures it brings pressured for the natural selection of dark skin color. Pigments, like melanin in the skin, protect against these harmful rays of the sun. This kept individuals with darker skin alive longer and they would reproduce and pass down the dark skinned genes to their offspring.

The main gene that controls eye color is relatively closely linked to the genes that cause skin color. It is believed that the ancient human ancestors all had dark brown or nearly black colored eyes and very dark hair (which is also controlled by linked genes to eye color and skin color).

Even though brown eyes are still considered mostly dominant over all eye colors, there are several different eye colors readily seen now in the global population of human beings. So where did all of these eye colors come from? (when we have genetic dominance of dark eye color as the original - my words)

While evidence is still being collected, most scientists agree that the natural selection for the lighter eye colors are linked to the relaxation of selection for the darker skin tones. As human ancestors began to migrate to various places around the world, the pressure for selection of dark skin color was not as intense. Particularly unnecessary to human ancestors that settled in what are now the Western European nations, selection for dark skin and dark eyes was no longer necessary for survival. These much higher latitudes afforded different seasons and no direct sunlight like near the equator on the continent of Africa. Since the selection pressure was no longer as intense, genes were more likely to mutate. (Here's where we diverge. Creation scientists say, "The theory of evolution attributes the continued production of genetic diversity to mutations, but evolutionists overlook the fact that the cell was intelligently designed. The cellular machinery was programmed to perform a level of self genetic engineering, and is editing genes systematically so that organisms can adapt to a wide variety of environmental conditions.")

Eye color is a bit complex when talking about genetics. The color of human eyes is not dictated by a single gene like many of the other traits. It is instead considered a polygenic trait, meaning there are several different genes on various chromosomes that carry information about what eye color an individual should possess. These genes, when expressed, then blend together to make various shades of different colors. Relaxed selection for dark eye color also allowed more mutations to take hold. (Again, we do not agree here.) This created even more alleles available to combine together in the gene pool to create different eye colors."

How Did Eye Color Evolve?

So, the answer for where our eye color comes from is complex. Not tied to a single gene. Creation scientists believe our different eye colors has to do with natural selection and the environment and those work against mutation as explained above. Evolutionists believe once the environment was relaxed, then changes were likely to happen by mutation. As for where the color comes from originally, we found that it's more complex than just natural selection and mutation. It includes the four natural processes, but the main one is gene flow. I hope we agree on that one and where we do not agree is on mutation.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If you are believe in a higher power feel free to add more questions to the thread. I want to hear what an atheist has to say on these questions. Can your prove your theories with the scientific method. please explain

Alrightly lets take a look.

Scientific method

- Ask a question

- Do research

- Construct a hypothesis

- Test with an experiment

- Analyze data and draw conclusions

- Communicate results

This is an archaec relic of the past. It is not the way science is conducted today. But I will assume you would want the current sciencifc methods instead.

What is the purpose of life?

A good question. Its a fundamental question that we ask from the time we are very young. Scientifically speaking there seems to be no purpose. Life exists because it does well to propagate life. It is simply a consequence of natural processes. It is much like asking what is the purpose of nuclear fussion?

How did the atoms that created the big bang get there?

It is doubtful that atoms created the big bang. Currently it is unknown because we lack the ability to obtain the necessary information.

What was before the big bang theory?

Same as just above.

If matter has always been there what caused them to react?

Matter has existed since the big bang for sure but during or even after we are not sure.

Can matter produce information?

Matter can be used to code information. It also depends on which version of "information" you are using. Information such as used in QM or DNA? Or something else?

How did consciousness come from matter?

This we do know to a degree. While it is debated it is understood that cognitive functions developed along with the evolution of brains. However many people have a hard time with this because they view cognitive function as somehow somethind different than consciousness. By some measure of "consciousesness" all matter has it. What I mean by that is that matter "views" other matter. The fact that the earth orbits the sun is because the earth is "aware" of the sun and interacts with it.

What happens when we die?

A number of postmortem processes.

Outside of radiometric dating what other methods prove millions of years?

The age of the universe or the Earth? Look up in the sky. The stars you see are so far away that it takes millions of years for that light to get here. The overwhelming vast majority of stars in our sky could not shine in our skys if the universe was young.

Do theories regarding the past involve some form of assumption that the earth has always maintained the same conditions as we do today?

Yes and no. We have whole fields of study that work on nothing but attempting to determine what the Earth conditions were. We can match that to other theories. However it seems that the physics that hold our universe together does not change.

Can Life come from something that is not alive?

Yes.

What test can be ran to prove evolution?

Any DNA test. A plethura of other experiments in labs have observed the evolution of organisms with very short lifespans.

Do all living things have genetic information? If so, would not new information be required for the process of evolution to take place?

Yes and yes. New genetic information is obtained all the time. It is a myth and bold faced lie that new genetic information does not develop.

Because evolution requires individuals to be gaining knowledge and getting better over time, how do we explain the very intelligent individual in the past?

By what measure? In human evolution the development of advanced cognitive language skills and problem solving skills have advanced significantly for sure. Not every animal requires this line of evolution however.

Also a few thousand years isn't necessarily significant. We are still the same species we were during Ancient Rome. We are the same genetically as we were during the Egyptians. Minor things may have changed slightly but not the species as a whole. Our average intellegence is significantly higher than our direct ancestors around a million years ago however. I doubt that there were any extremely advanced individuals that could compete with the average mind of people today from that time period.

 

[Shad]

You're too vague.

Neither question was vague.

How come you never answer my questions and instead accuse me of fact checking my sources?

Your question was rhetorical

That's really insulting.

Only insulting for you as it exposes your lack of fact checking or even that you think about verifying your sources.

Did I ask you to fact check yours?

You could all you want and I would provide a source. You seem uncomfortable being asked such a question which is odd.

I knew it was a period of time where the beliefs of Christian scientists were coming under great pressure.

So...

It's a waste of time to go through these games.

Not really. Verifying sources is a mundane exercise taught in grade school

I do not have time to spend with people who just do these tit-for-tat games.

This is just a deflection to cover that you do not fact check much of what you parrot on RF.

I thought you had something to contribute.

I contributed information that your claim is false. You just do not like my contribution as it reflected poorly on you

I'll just put you on ignore again. We are done.

Hilarious acts of a child. You were exposed then you ignore the one exposing you.