Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Convince me to become a Creationist

distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:13:48 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,860
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:25:40 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:13:48 AM, distraff wrote:
Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?

Why not just be a, you know, theistic evolutionist?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 5:09:11 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:25:40 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:13:48 AM, distraff wrote:
Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?

Why not just be a, you know, theistic evolutionist?

For Christians that is certainly a very intelligent option.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 1:26:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:13:48 AM, distraff wrote:
Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?

I sure can, allow me to give you the air tight, super logical arguments that disprove evolution and also prove creationism.

Dog only comes from Dog, check and mate atheists.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 1:29:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:13:48 AM, distraff wrote:
Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?

Both are religions , both require faith.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 1:04:45 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 1:29:12 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:13:48 AM, distraff wrote:
Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?

Both are religions , both require faith.

Not very convincing. Maybe debating is not your thing.

Anybody else?
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 1:06:28 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 1:26:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:13:48 AM, distraff wrote:
Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?

I sure can, allow me to give you the air tight, super logical arguments that disprove evolution and also prove creationism.

Dog only comes from Dog, check and mate atheists.

I myself believe in the flat earth.

My airtight logic:
Earth looks flat so earth is flat.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 1:56:03 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 1:04:45 AM, distraff wrote:
At 1/20/2016 1:29:12 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:13:48 AM, distraff wrote:
Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?

Both are religions , both require faith.

Not very convincing. Maybe debating is not your thing.

Anybody else?

explain to me your view on how life starts in the primordial soup
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 2:36:43 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 1:56:03 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:04:45 AM, distraff wrote:
At 1/20/2016 1:29:12 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:13:48 AM, distraff wrote:
Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?

Both are religions , both require faith.

Not very convincing. Maybe debating is not your thing.

Anybody else?

explain to me your view on how life starts in the primordial soup

I really don't know how life started. Maybe it is some crazy chemical reaction, maybe it was a designer.
NothingSpecial99
Posts: 379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 2:58:22 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
I'll be making my argument based on genetics:

In order to go from the first living cell's which had the bare minimum amount of functional DNA to code for the proteins essential for life to a human whose DNA contains billions of nucleotide pairs that code for hundreds of proteins, there must exist a mechanism for which new functional genetic information can arise. Evolutionists look to mutations to do this however, they do the exact opposite.

The current consensus among the genetic community is that point mutations per generation is around 75-175 point mutations added per generation of humans [1]. However, there are more types of mutations than substitutions. It is estimated that for every substitution mutation there is at least one micro-satellite mutation doubling the rate to around 150-350 mutations [2]. There are plenty more types of mutations that get passed down through every generation but to save space, I will not dive into those numbers.

However, if you look at the types of mutations that happen, deleterious mutations greatly outnumber beneficial mutations. In a study conducted by Dr. Bergman where he did a simple literature search on Biological Abstracts and Medline with the key word, "mutation", he found that out of the 453,732 results found, 186 only mentioned the word "beneficial" [3]. There are other estimates that go as low as 1 in a million mutations being beneficial [4]. The proportion becomes even lower if you remove mutations that are only beneficial in context due to a malfunction in the genome (ex. Human lactose intolerance as the result of a malfunctioning LCT gene ) [5].

Even the MDR germs that result from mutations are still due to the loss of genetic information. For example, streptomycin-resistance is due to mutations altering the ribosome so the specific sites where streptomycin usually attaches to and kill the bacteria are gone [6] [7]. This is another example of a loss of specificity. In addition, because the ribosomes are altered, this makes the process where bacteria creates proteins vital to its life becomes less effective. In a streptomycin-free environment, the bacteria would be outcompeted by normal bacteria [8].

Another example of a mutation-caused resistance is found in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. This bacteria normally produces an enzyme that would interact with antibiotics to turn it into its lethal form. However, a mutation where the gene responsible for the enzyme is damaged results in little to no enzyme to interact with the antibiotic. Therefore, the antibiotic will remain in its harmless form. [9]

In fact, I have yet to see a mutation that increases the amount of functional genetic information by creating functional genes. However, even if I were to draw a line on the diagram as seen below to acknowledge beneficial mutations exist blowing the distribution out of proportion, there is an obvious problem.

How does this disprove evolution and prove creation? If genetic information cannot be increased, much less even maintained, it is ridiculous to even say that entire functional genomes of organisms were created through natural selection and mutations making the whole theory moot. Several conclusions from this information can be made to support creation.

1. If functional genomes cannot arise, then the only alternative is that they were designed by an intelligent creator.

2. The rates at which genomes degrade imply a rather recent origin of species.


Sources:

1. Kondrashov, A.S. 2002. Direct Estimate of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases. Human Mutation 21:12-27
2. Ellegren, H. 2000. Microsatellite mutations in the germline: implications for evolutionary interference. TIG 16:551-558
3. Bergman, J. 2004. Research on the deterioration of the genome and Darwinism: why mutations result in degeneration of the genome. Intelligent design Conference, Biola University. April 22-23
4. Gerrish, P.J. and R. Lenski. 1998. The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103: 127-144.
5. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...
6. Davies, L, Brzezinska, M. and Benveniste, R., R factors: biochemical mechanisms of resistance to amino glycoside antibiotics, Annals of the New York Academy of Science 182:226"233, 1971.
7. Davies, J. and Nomura, M., The genetics of bacterial ribosomes, Annual Review of Genetics 6:203"234, 1972.
8. Gartner, T. and Orias, E., Effects of mutations to streptomycin resistance on the rate of translation of mutant genetic information, J. Bacteriology 91:1021"1028, 1966.
9. Wieland, C., Antibiotic resistance in bacteria, Journal of Creation 8(l):5"6, 1994; p. 5.
"Check your facts, not your privilege" - Christina Hoff Summers

If you go to jail for Tax Evasion, you're living off of Taxes as a result of not paying Taxes

"Facts don't care about your feelings" - Ben Shapiro
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 3:19:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 2:36:43 AM, distraff wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:56:03 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:04:45 AM, distraff wrote:
At 1/20/2016 1:29:12 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:13:48 AM, distraff wrote:
Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?

Both are religions , both require faith.

Not very convincing. Maybe debating is not your thing.

Anybody else?

explain to me your view on how life starts in the primordial soup

I really don't know how life started. Maybe it is some crazy chemical reaction, maybe it was a designer.

yeah maybe... Like I said both require faith to believe. I cannot convince you where to put your faith. Thats a decision you have already made.
ViceRegent
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 6:26:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
>Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?

Evolution is not a scientific theory, for it is not observable, testable, repeatable or falsifiable.

Evolution also insists that you believe something came from nothing, the non-material came from the material, life came from non-life, humanity came from non-humanity and many other absurdities that contract the laws of science.

Only a fool believes in evolution.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 8:03:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 6:26:48 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
>Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?

Evolution is not a scientific theory, for it is not observable, testable, repeatable or falsifiable.

This claim is made without any evidence. Not convincing at all.

Evolution also insists that you believe something came from nothing,

That is quantum mechanics not the theory of evolution.

the non-material came from the material,

I don't know any theory that claims this.

life came from non-life,

Abiogenesis not evolution.

humanity came from non-humanity and many other absurdities that contract the laws of science.

Why is human evolution absurd?

Only a fool believes in evolution.

Because you seem to be wholly confused about what evolution is actually all about, I strongly suspect that it is not the evolutionists who are the fools.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 8:05:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 3:19:15 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/21/2016 2:36:43 AM, distraff wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:56:03 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:04:45 AM, distraff wrote:
At 1/20/2016 1:29:12 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:13:48 AM, distraff wrote:
Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?

Both are religions , both require faith.

Not very convincing. Maybe debating is not your thing.

Anybody else?

explain to me your view on how life starts in the primordial soup

I really don't know how life started. Maybe it is some crazy chemical reaction, maybe it was a designer.

yeah maybe... Like I said both require faith to believe. I cannot convince you where to put your faith. Thats a decision you have already made.

Wait, the life from non-life is abiogenesis not the theory of evolution. And scientists admit that abiogenesis is only a hypothesis and do not have faith in it.
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 8:56:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 8:05:21 PM, distraff wrote:
At 1/21/2016 3:19:15 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/21/2016 2:36:43 AM, distraff wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:56:03 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:04:45 AM, distraff wrote:
At 1/20/2016 1:29:12 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:13:48 AM, distraff wrote:
Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?

Both are religions , both require faith.

Not very convincing. Maybe debating is not your thing.

Anybody else?

explain to me your view on how life starts in the primordial soup

I really don't know how life started. Maybe it is some crazy chemical reaction, maybe it was a designer.

yeah maybe... Like I said both require faith to believe. I cannot convince you where to put your faith. Thats a decision you have already made.

Wait, the life from non-life is abiogenesis not the theory of evolution. And scientists admit that abiogenesis is only a hypothesis and do not have faith in it.

In what then do they put their faith in when contemplating the origins of life?
Danb6177
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 8:59:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
The point is if your not a creationist you are a believer in a scientific view of the origin of life. A view that cannot be based from facts and requires faith. But I think you know I meant that from the get go.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,611
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 9:25:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 2:58:22 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
I'll be making my argument based on genetics:

In order to go from the first living cell's which had the bare minimum amount of functional DNA to code for the proteins essential for life to a human whose DNA contains billions of nucleotide pairs that code for hundreds of proteins, there must exist a mechanism for which new functional genetic information can arise. Evolutionists look to mutations to do this however, they do the exact opposite.

Mutations are not the only mechanism that allows for this to happen. Consider variation as a result of sexual intercourse, for example. Coupled with geographical isolation, this can result in the formation of a new species over a very long period of time.


However, if you look at the types of mutations that happen, deleterious mutations greatly outnumber beneficial mutations. In a study conducted by Dr. Bergman where he did a simple literature search on Biological Abstracts and Medline with the key word, "mutation", he found that out of the 453,732 results found, 186 only mentioned the word "beneficial" [3]. There are other estimates that go as low as 1 in a million mutations being beneficial [4]. The proportion becomes even lower if you remove mutations that are only beneficial in context due to a malfunction in the genome (ex. Human lactose intolerance as the result of a malfunctioning LCT gene ) [5].

It is important to realize that many detrimental mutations that arise in organisms would not exist for very long periods of time. If a mutation happens to be detrimental to an organism, then its fitness has decreased (assuming detrimental = loss of fitness), meaning that it would not survive to reproduce. It would quickly die.

You also seem to have set up a false dichotomy. There are not merely beneficial and detrimental mutations. There also exist mutations that have little to no impact on an organism. I don't know the numbers, but if I had to intuitively guess right now, I'd say that these mutations make up the majority of most mutations that occur.

Lastly, microorganisms typically have the largest number of mutations. In mammals such as humans, mutations are comparatively much smaller. When observing the various mutations and variations between bacteria and the frequency at which they mutate, we can see how it's possible for bacteria to develop beneficial or positive attributes. This is often why proper use of antibiotics is becoming a problem in today's society.
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 10:23:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 6:26:48 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
>Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?

Evolution is not a scientific theory, for it is not observable,
It is observable. It has been observed in the laboratory and in nature, and the evidence which is present in the genetic code of every living organism and in the remains of every fossilized organism can be observed.

testable,
It is testable.

http://journals.plos.org...

There's a test for you. You, my friend, are the one who is advocating for an untestable alternative.

repeatable
Simply untrue.

or falsifiable.
There are innumerable ways to falsify evolution. All you need is one, JUST ONE, example of the twin nested hierarchy falling to pieces, and you would falsify evolution.

Refer to the link provided above. Maths iz kool, huh? There didn't have to be that level of congruence, but there was and is.

Evolution also insists that you believe something came from nothing, the non-material came from the material, life came from non-life, humanity came from non-humanity and many other absurdities that contract the laws of science.
Merely an assertion. . . And a false one at that.

Only a fool believes in evolution.
Only a willfully ignorant fool would believe in anything other than the Theory of Evolution. It is the only compelling explanation of how speciation occurs.

But speaking of credentials, since you brought it up with Distraff, I'm curious as to what yours are. Your post certainly doesn't seem to indicate that you habe received any formal training in any scientific discipline.

If you haven't any, perhaps you shouldn't be trying to play that card against anyone else, hm?
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 1:12:09 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 8:56:02 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/21/2016 8:05:21 PM, distraff wrote:
At 1/21/2016 3:19:15 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/21/2016 2:36:43 AM, distraff wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:56:03 AM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/21/2016 1:04:45 AM, distraff wrote:
At 1/20/2016 1:29:12 PM, Danb6177 wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:13:48 AM, distraff wrote:
Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?

Both are religions , both require faith.

Not very convincing. Maybe debating is not your thing.

Anybody else?

explain to me your view on how life starts in the primordial soup

I really don't know how life started. Maybe it is some crazy chemical reaction, maybe it was a designer.

yeah maybe... Like I said both require faith to believe. I cannot convince you where to put your faith. Thats a decision you have already made.

Wait, the life from non-life is abiogenesis not the theory of evolution. And scientists admit that abiogenesis is only a hypothesis and do not have faith in it.

In what then do they put their faith in when contemplating the origins of life?

I really don't know. They do experiments I guess.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 3:04:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 2:58:22 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
I'll be making my argument based on genetics:

In order to go from the first living cell's which had the bare minimum amount of functional DNA to code for the proteins essential for life to a human whose DNA contains billions of nucleotide pairs that code for hundreds of proteins, there must exist a mechanism for which new functional genetic information can arise. Evolutionists look to mutations to do this however, they do the exact opposite.

The current consensus among the genetic community is that point mutations per generation is around 75-175 point mutations added per generation of humans [1]. However, there are more types of mutations than substitutions. It is estimated that for every substitution mutation there is at least one micro-satellite mutation doubling the rate to around 150-350 mutations [2]. There are plenty more types of mutations that get passed down through every generation but to save space, I will not dive into those numbers.

However, if you look at the types of mutations that happen, deleterious mutations greatly outnumber beneficial mutations. In a study conducted by Dr. Bergman where he did a simple literature search on Biological Abstracts and Medline with the key word, "mutation", he found that out of the 453,732 results found, 186 only mentioned the word "beneficial" [3]. There are other estimates that go as low as 1 in a million mutations being beneficial [4]. The proportion becomes even lower if you remove mutations that are only beneficial in context due to a malfunction in the genome (ex. Human lactose intolerance as the result of a malfunctioning LCT gene ) [5].

Even the MDR germs that result from mutations are still due to the loss of genetic information. For example, streptomycin-resistance is due to mutations altering the ribosome so the specific sites where streptomycin usually attaches to and kill the bacteria are gone [6] [7]. This is another example of a loss of specificity. In addition, because the ribosomes are altered, this makes the process where bacteria creates proteins vital to its life becomes less effective. In a streptomycin-free environment, the bacteria would be outcompeted by normal bacteria [8].

Another example of a mutation-caused resistance is found in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. This bacteria normally produces an enzyme that would interact with antibiotics to turn it into its lethal form. However, a mutation where the gene responsible for the enzyme is damaged results in little to no enzyme to interact with the antibiotic. Therefore, the antibiotic will remain in its harmless form. [9]

In fact, I have yet to see a mutation that increases the amount of functional genetic information by creating functional genes. However, even if I were to draw a line on the diagram as seen below to acknowledge beneficial mutations exist blowing the distribution out of proportion, there is an obvious problem.

How does this disprove evolution and prove creation? If genetic information cannot be increased, much less even maintained, it is ridiculous to even say that entire functional genomes of organisms were created through natural selection and mutations making the whole theory moot. Several conclusions from this information can be made to support creation.

1. If functional genomes cannot arise, then the only alternative is that they were designed by an intelligent creator.

2. The rates at which genomes degrade imply a rather recent origin of species.


Sources:

1. Kondrashov, A.S. 2002. Direct Estimate of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases. Human Mutation 21:12-27
2. Ellegren, H. 2000. Microsatellite mutations in the germline: implications for evolutionary interference. TIG 16:551-558
3. Bergman, J. 2004. Research on the deterioration of the genome and Darwinism: why mutations result in degeneration of the genome. Intelligent design Conference, Biola University. April 22-23
4. Gerrish, P.J. and R. Lenski. 1998. The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103: 127-144.
5. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...
6. Davies, L, Brzezinska, M. and Benveniste, R., R factors: biochemical mechanisms of resistance to amino glycoside antibiotics, Annals of the New York Academy of Science 182:226"233, 1971.
7. Davies, J. and Nomura, M., The genetics of bacterial ribosomes, Annual Review of Genetics 6:203"234, 1972.
8. Gartner, T. and Orias, E., Effects of mutations to streptomycin resistance on the rate of translation of mutant genetic information, J. Bacteriology 91:1021"1028, 1966.
9. Wieland, C., Antibiotic resistance in bacteria, Journal of Creation 8(l):5"6, 1994; p. 5.

I'd rather debate evolution itself in a debate (which I'm too busy and too tired to do), but none of this proves creationism. All this proves is "the origin of species was fairly recent," which doesn't entail that (a) it was done in six days, (b) God did it, or (c) an exact description of Genesis.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 4:55:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 2:58:22 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
I'll be making my argument based on genetics:

In order to go from the first living cell's which had the bare minimum amount of functional DNA to code for the proteins essential for life to a human whose DNA contains billions of nucleotide pairs that code for hundreds of proteins, there must exist a mechanism for which new functional genetic information can arise. Evolutionists look to mutations to do this however, they do the exact opposite.

And yet, we have examples of this happening.

The current consensus among the genetic community is that point mutations per generation is around 75-175 point mutations added per generation of humans [1]. However, there are more types of mutations than substitutions. It is estimated that for every substitution mutation there is at least one micro-satellite mutation doubling the rate to around 150-350 mutations [2]. There are plenty more types of mutations that get passed down through every generation but to save space, I will not dive into those numbers.

However, if you look at the types of mutations that happen, deleterious mutations greatly outnumber beneficial mutations. In a study conducted by Dr. Bergman where he did a simple literature search on Biological Abstracts and Medline with the key word, "mutation", he found that out of the 453,732 results found, 186 only mentioned the word "beneficial" [3]. There are other estimates that go as low as 1 in a million mutations being beneficial [4]. The proportion becomes even lower if you remove mutations that are only beneficial in context due to a malfunction in the genome (ex. Human lactose intolerance as the result of a malfunctioning LCT gene ) [5].

Even the MDR germs that result from mutations are still due to the loss of genetic information. For example, streptomycin-resistance is due to mutations altering the ribosome so the specific sites where streptomycin usually attaches to and kill the bacteria are gone [6] [7]. This is another example of a loss of specificity. In addition, because the ribosomes are altered, this makes the process where bacteria creates proteins vital to its life becomes less effective. In a streptomycin-free environment, the bacteria would be outcompeted by normal bacteria [8].

Another example of a mutation-caused resistance is found in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. This bacteria normally produces an enzyme that would interact with antibiotics to turn it into its lethal form. However, a mutation where the gene responsible for the enzyme is damaged results in little to no enzyme to interact with the antibiotic. Therefore, the antibiotic will remain in its harmless form. [9]

Sure. No one is saying that beneficial mutations occur more frequently than harmful ones. Infact, the most common, most frequent mutations are actually silent, neutral mutations that are neither harmful nor beneficial.

But guess what? Beneficial mutations have a much, much higher chance of being passed down from generation to generation, than harmful ones, which makes your argument meaningless. It doesnt matter if Harmful mutations outnumber beneficial ones 1000 to 1, all that matters is whether beneficial mutations can be passed down.

In fact, I have yet to see a mutation that increases the amount of functional genetic information by creating functional genes. However, even if I were to draw a line on the diagram as seen below to acknowledge beneficial mutations exist blowing the distribution out of proportion, there is an obvious problem.

Heres an example. Nylonase.

How does this disprove evolution and prove creation? If genetic information cannot be increased, much less even maintained, it is ridiculous to even say that entire functional genomes of organisms were created through natural selection and mutations making the whole theory moot. Several conclusions from this information can be made to support creation.

1. If functional genomes cannot arise, then the only alternative is that they were designed by an intelligent creator.

2. The rates at which genomes degrade imply a rather recent origin of species.



Wait, how does this demonstrate that the origin of species is recent, or that the theory of evolution is moot? Consider the following scenario:

An intelligent creator creates the first single-celled organism.

That Organism multiplies and evolves into every living thing we see today.

The theory of evolution, everything about it, would still be accurate. The age of life, would also be accurate.

Furthermore, your "Recent origin of species" ignores all the dating methods and our knowledge and understanding regarding the age of the earth, geology, paleontology, etc etc etc.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 5:19:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 2:58:22 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
I'll be making my argument based on genetics:

In order to go from the first living cell's which had the bare minimum amount of functional DNA to code for the proteins essential for life to a human whose DNA contains billions of nucleotide pairs that code for hundreds of proteins, there must exist a mechanism for which new functional genetic information can arise. Evolutionists look to mutations to do this however, they do the exact opposite.

The current consensus among the genetic community is that point mutations per generation is around 75-175 point mutations added per generation of humans [1]. However, there are more types of mutations than substitutions. It is estimated that for every substitution mutation there is at least one micro-satellite mutation doubling the rate to around 150-350 mutations [2]. There are plenty more types of mutations that get passed down through every generation but to save space, I will not dive into those numbers.

However, if you look at the types of mutations that happen, deleterious mutations greatly outnumber beneficial mutations. In a study conducted by Dr. Bergman where he did a simple literature search on Biological Abstracts and Medline with the key word, "mutation", he found that out of the 453,732 results found, 186 only mentioned the word "beneficial" [3].

Come on, literary references cannot prove anything. It just may mean that scientists are taking about some other aspect of the mutation. Now how many references to "deleterious" were there?

There are other estimates that go as low as 1 in a million mutations being beneficial [4].

These are estimates. What is the average estimate not the low one? Also, keep in mind that natural selection will weed out bad mutations. For example, if you are born without a heart, you die. If you are born to be twice as smart you will more likely be successful and have kids in the wild. Natural selection at work.

The proportion becomes even lower if you remove mutations that are only beneficial in context due to a malfunction in the genome (ex. Human lactose intolerance as the result of a malfunctioning LCT gene ) [5].

Even the MDR germs that result from mutations are still due to the loss of genetic information. For example, streptomycin-resistance is due to mutations altering the ribosome so the specific sites where streptomycin usually attaches to and kill the bacteria are gone [6] [7]. This is another example of a loss of specificity. In addition, because the ribosomes are altered, this makes the process where bacteria creates proteins vital to its life becomes less effective. In a streptomycin-free environment, the bacteria would be outcompeted by normal bacteria [8].

Another example of a mutation-caused resistance is found in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. This bacteria normally produces an enzyme that would interact with antibiotics to turn it into its lethal form. However, a mutation where the gene responsible for the enzyme is damaged results in little to no enzyme to interact with the antibiotic. Therefore, the antibiotic will remain in its harmless form. [9]

In fact, I have yet to see a mutation that increases the amount of functional genetic information by creating functional genes. However, even if I were to draw a line on the diagram as seen below to acknowledge beneficial mutations exist blowing the distribution out of proportion, there is an obvious problem.

The only way to add abilities while increasing genetic information is to first duplicate genetic information, and then modify that gene in such a way that it does something beneficial. Simply mutating an existing gene to work differently only revises information and does not increase it. However this is the most common way beneficial mutations happen.

It is difficult enough to prove that a new feature was evolution and not just a new discovery. Then it is even more difficult to determine the gene that the new feature came from. Then you have to prove it came from a mutation not natural selection selecting a rare version of a gene. Then you have to prove it came from the duplication process above. So even if these instances did exist I would be surprised if any has been found.

And there are examples of beneficial mutations from gene duplication.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

In a study of yeast, scientists found that they gained the ability to better eat glocuse and a glucose limited environment and this happened through gene duplication and modification. This is one out of several examples. If there was an easier way to prove beneficial mutations from gene duplication happened there would be far more examples.

Examples can be found here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

There is the amount of genetic information and then there are the actual physiological attributes. The amount of genetic information is not that important because much of that information is non-coding and doesn't seem to have much of an affect on us. Also, there are small bacteria will far more genetic information than humans but that doesn't mean they are actually more complex.

What I care most about is the end result. Did the mutation give you an ability that you didn't have before. Its about messing with the genetic code to enhance your abilities. I am not very particular about the way the genetic code was messed with. So your examples above are instances of beneficial mutations giving creatures new abilities although they may not increase genetic information. So if human intelligence evolved because of the right set of genes being turned on or off or being disabled, or only modifying genes instead of creating new ones, I would still consider this a great example of evolution.

How does this disprove evolution and prove creation? If genetic information cannot be increased, much less even maintained, it is ridiculous to even say that entire functional genomes of organisms were created through natural selection and mutations making the whole theory moot. Several conclusions from this information can be made to support creation.

It has already been shown that beneficial mutations happen even though these examples don't increase genetic information. I showed you how a gene duplication and point mutations could happen and since some mutations are beneficial then these could be beneficial as well. The lack of examples may mean that in this late stage of evolution, we are mostly seeing the modification of the genetic code instead of increase. Also it is difficult to prove a case of a beneficial and novel mutation that had genetic code increase. So you have failed to show that genetic information cannot be increased.
NothingSpecial99
Posts: 379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 6:25:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/22/2016 3:04:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 1/21/2016 2:58:22 AM, NothingSpecial99 wrote:
I'll be making my argument based on genetics:

In order to go from the first living cell's which had the bare minimum amount of functional DNA to code for the proteins essential for life to a human whose DNA contains billions of nucleotide pairs that code for hundreds of proteins, there must exist a mechanism for which new functional genetic information can arise. Evolutionists look to mutations to do this however, they do the exact opposite.

The current consensus among the genetic community is that point mutations per generation is around 75-175 point mutations added per generation of humans [1]. However, there are more types of mutations than substitutions. It is estimated that for every substitution mutation there is at least one micro-satellite mutation doubling the rate to around 150-350 mutations [2]. There are plenty more types of mutations that get passed down through every generation but to save space, I will not dive into those numbers.

However, if you look at the types of mutations that happen, deleterious mutations greatly outnumber beneficial mutations. In a study conducted by Dr. Bergman where he did a simple literature search on Biological Abstracts and Medline with the key word, "mutation", he found that out of the 453,732 results found, 186 only mentioned the word "beneficial" [3]. There are other estimates that go as low as 1 in a million mutations being beneficial [4]. The proportion becomes even lower if you remove mutations that are only beneficial in context due to a malfunction in the genome (ex. Human lactose intolerance as the result of a malfunctioning LCT gene ) [5].

Even the MDR germs that result from mutations are still due to the loss of genetic information. For example, streptomycin-resistance is due to mutations altering the ribosome so the specific sites where streptomycin usually attaches to and kill the bacteria are gone [6] [7]. This is another example of a loss of specificity. In addition, because the ribosomes are altered, this makes the process where bacteria creates proteins vital to its life becomes less effective. In a streptomycin-free environment, the bacteria would be outcompeted by normal bacteria [8].

Another example of a mutation-caused resistance is found in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. This bacteria normally produces an enzyme that would interact with antibiotics to turn it into its lethal form. However, a mutation where the gene responsible for the enzyme is damaged results in little to no enzyme to interact with the antibiotic. Therefore, the antibiotic will remain in its harmless form. [9]

In fact, I have yet to see a mutation that increases the amount of functional genetic information by creating functional genes. However, even if I were to draw a line on the diagram as seen below to acknowledge beneficial mutations exist blowing the distribution out of proportion, there is an obvious problem.

How does this disprove evolution and prove creation? If genetic information cannot be increased, much less even maintained, it is ridiculous to even say that entire functional genomes of organisms were created through natural selection and mutations making the whole theory moot. Several conclusions from this information can be made to support creation.

1. If functional genomes cannot arise, then the only alternative is that they were designed by an intelligent creator.

2. The rates at which genomes degrade imply a rather recent origin of species.


Sources:

1. Kondrashov, A.S. 2002. Direct Estimate of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases. Human Mutation 21:12-27
2. Ellegren, H. 2000. Microsatellite mutations in the germline: implications for evolutionary interference. TIG 16:551-558
3. Bergman, J. 2004. Research on the deterioration of the genome and Darwinism: why mutations result in degeneration of the genome. Intelligent design Conference, Biola University. April 22-23
4. Gerrish, P.J. and R. Lenski. 1998. The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103: 127-144.
5. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...
6. Davies, L, Brzezinska, M. and Benveniste, R., R factors: biochemical mechanisms of resistance to amino glycoside antibiotics, Annals of the New York Academy of Science 182:226"233, 1971.
7. Davies, J. and Nomura, M., The genetics of bacterial ribosomes, Annual Review of Genetics 6:203"234, 1972.
8. Gartner, T. and Orias, E., Effects of mutations to streptomycin resistance on the rate of translation of mutant genetic information, J. Bacteriology 91:1021"1028, 1966.
9. Wieland, C., Antibiotic resistance in bacteria, Journal of Creation 8(l):5"6, 1994; p. 5.

I'd rather debate evolution itself in a debate (which I'm too busy and too tired to do), but none of this proves creationism. All this proves is "the origin of species was fairly recent," which doesn't entail that (a) it was done in six days, (b) God did it, or (c) an exact description of Genesis.

I mutually agree that this would be better discussed within a debate
"Check your facts, not your privilege" - Christina Hoff Summers

If you go to jail for Tax Evasion, you're living off of Taxes as a result of not paying Taxes

"Facts don't care about your feelings" - Ben Shapiro
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 8:51:32 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:13:48 AM, distraff wrote:
Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?

Evolution is a fact. There is no rational argument against it.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 8:52:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Just continuing on from my last post.

I don't believe that there is an argument against evolution that I (or any any knowledgeable evolutionist) couldn't disprove.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2016 8:53:23 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:13:48 AM, distraff wrote:
Hello everyone. Could the creationists here explain to me why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is correct?

If you're looking for a good debate on the topic look here: http://www.debate.org...
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy