No I don’t, you brought the claims for the book here, the entire burden of proof is yours, and your post thus far have failed laughably to offer anything remotely objective or compelling.
I no more need to buy this book, than I need to buy the Harry Potter novels, in order to disbelieve in wizardry.
Then go back and address the criticism of your claims and quotes. So far you have offered naught but preaching.
Wrong.
I’ve spent 15 years studying the evolutionary biology literature, and on the basis of that diligent study, I can tell you that everything the author peddles in the screed Mutation Schmutation is nothing but reheated creationist lies.
I’ve just provided everyone with a link to a document I compiled, demolishing creationist canards, that is the summation of 15 years’ work. Which, as I stated above, should inform even the casual observer that I’ve exerted diligent effort, directed at [1] learning properly about evolutionary biology and what the scientists in the field actually postulate, as opposed to duplicitous creationist caricatures thereof, and [2] demolishing those creationist caricatures and the associated canards and lies.
Now, if you exert some diligence, and read that document I linked to, you’ll learn why I regard the author of this screed with open contempt. If need be, I’ll point you at several other documents of mine, covering such topics as the current state of the art of prebiotic chemistry research, and various findings from evolutionary biology that destroy creationist lies on the subject wholesale.
Quite simply, there’s nothing to “discuss” with respect to his screeds, because that’s precisely what they are - screeds. They misrepresent atheism, they misrepresent evolutionary biology, and I cannot imagine any reputable publisher handling this material, certainly not any publisher that also carries among its titles works that are grounded in genuine science.
Now, despite the fact that my corpus stretches to something like 4 million words over a 15 year period, I’ve just provided a suitably succinct summary thereof. So your excuse is just that - an excuse.
All Theist religions all claim to “disprove” any and all disbelief in their god or gods including Atheism. This is not new.
Then discuss something from them. Pick an item from the books and write your thoughts about it. Quit hocking their sale. It’s simply unrealistic to discuss the entirety of a book, let alone a series of books, in one fell swoop.
That is a lie. I know you don’t know me from Adam, but I do have a degree in the subject.
Five minutes of research would tell you this is a lie.
Deemed by whom? The crackpot who wrote the rest of this crap?
Basically the entire math section is nonsense. I’m guessing the same goes for the other paragraphs. I really haven’t read them as there is no reason to continue after reading the math section. Clearly this is the work of a crackpot.
Total garbage.
Item one: mutations have not only been observed occurring (and indeed, have been sequenced in relevant organisms), but the underlying chemistry generating mutations is well understood.
Item two: fake creationist “probability” calculations ARE fake, and I’ve devoted numerous column inches to establishing why they are fake. First of all, there’s the serial trials fallacy - the assumption that the relevant events only occur one at a time in single individuals. This is rubbish. Mutations occur simultaneously or in rapid succession throughout the entire population, and when that population consists of millions of individuals, the probability that a given mutation will occur increases accordingly.
Second, there’s the “one true sequence” fallacy that creationists love, namely the false assertion that a gene can only work, if one exact sequence of nucleotides is present. This has been known to be garbage by biologists for decades. Even a critical gene such as the gene for insulin, occurs in many forms in different species, and several thousand nucleotide sequences are known to code for a working insulin molecule. The bioinformatics databases are littered with data on this and thousands of other genes, and that data set amounts to petabytes of data. None of which have ever been examined at even an elementary level by any creationist peddling fake “probability” calculations.
Once again, the above is the sort of diligence that has been exercised by myself and others, in dismantling creationist bullshit.
Oh, and I’ve devoted numerous column inches to destroying the garbage about evolution being rendered supposedly “impossible” by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Apart from the past scientific papers on the subject that destroy this blatant creationist lie, a new one has been added more recently, namely this one:
Towards An Evolutionary Theory Of The Origin Of Life Based On Kinetics And Thermodynamics by Robert Pascal, Addy Cross & John D. Sutherland, Open Biology, 3(11): 1-9 (1st November 2013) [Full paper available to read online here, downloadable PDF available here]
That paper opens with (emphases mine):
Oh, and I have enough papers on the subject of prebiotic RNA syntheses, to provide the backdrop for the above work, some of the prior research dating back to the mid-1990s.
Oh, and as for lies about evolution in general, evolution has been successfully tested experimentally. Theodosius Dobzhansky published no less than FORTY-THREE peer reviewed scientific papers documenting his successful direct experimental tests of natural selection.
Those papers can be found in this book:
Dobzhansky’s Genetics of Natural Populations
He followed this work with more peer reviewed scientific papers, documenting his successful direct experimental tests of speciation mechanisms. This and related work has been built upon by subsequent researchers.
The best part of this, is that Dobzhansky was not only one of the foremost evolutionary biologists of the 20th century. He was ALSO a practising Eastern Orthodox Christian. Unlike creationists such as the author of the screed you brought here, he never once felt the need to lie for his god.
In addition, Dobzhansky, thanks to his background in population genetics, brought rigour our understanding of the nature of biological species, and as instrumental in developing the biological species concept.
Meanwhile, I’m aware of successful direct experimental tests of evolution, that can be performed and replicated in a high school laboratory. Here are three examples thereof:
Diane Dodd’s Incipient Speciation Experiment In Drosophila Pseudoobscura
Mavarez et al, Speciation Via Hybridisation in Heliconius Butterflies
Ole Seehausen’s Direct Experimental Test Of Sexual Selection
The last of those examples can be repeated successfully by any of the tens of millions of tropical fishkeepers across the developed world, who learned how to keep and breed African Rift Lake Cichlids in the aquarium.
Finally, scientists are now using evolutionary methods to “design” useful artefacts. Here’s an example of a spacecraft communications antenna, that was “designed” using evolutionary algorithms. The antenna in question was then flown upon a real spacecraft, and upon testing, found to perform BETTER than human designed antennae.
http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/papers/Space2006Antenna.pdf
Meanwhile, since you brought up whale evolution, I’ll bring here some relevant findings from the past, that blow creationist lies out of the water. Namely, the work of one George Henry Faulkner Nuttall. Strap yourself in, you’re in for a hard ride.
Nuttall provided a test intended to link a sample to a particular species, using an antibody reaction. This test, the serum antibody reaction or precipitin test, was perfected by Nuttall in 1900.
Nuttall then found that the test was useful from a phylogenetic standpoint, namely, determining species relationships with each other. His 1901 paper on this matter is available online, courtesy of the Royal Society of London, here:
Nuttall’s Original 1901 Royal Society Paper
This was then followed by the book “The Precipitin Reaction In The Study of Animal Relationships” by Alan Arthur Boyden, who reported in that book the following:
That work is available in full (all 109 pages of it) here:
The Precipitin Reaction In The Study of Animal Relationships by Alan Arthur Boyden
Lo and behold, Nuttall’s 1904 magnum opus is ALSO available online, namely here:
Blood Immunity and Blood Relationship
The full title of this work, is Blood Immunity and Blood Relationship : A Demonstration Of Certain Blood-Relationships Among Animals By Means Of The Precipitin Test for Blood, and extends across 468 pages.
On page 160, Nuttall reports that he conducted no less than 94 tests with antiserum for whales, and on page 189, reported the results of testing against anti-ox serum, in which he found (as covered on page 190) that whale blood reacted with anti-ox serum, pointing to whales being related to artiodactyl mammals.
On page 198, he reported that tests with anti-whale serum against blood from Artiodactyls, again yielded a reaction indicating a close phylogenetic relationship.On page 216, we have this:
On page 325, Nuttall lists the result of QUANTITATIVE tests with anti-antelope serum, and immediately after a brace of other Artiodactyl mammals, the next entry is listed as Balaenoptera rostrata, the common Minke Whale (now known as Balaenoptera acutorostrata).
On page 327, Nuttall lists the results of more QUANTITATIVE tests, this time with anti-hog-deer serum, and this time, Balaenoptera rostrata is reported as having a 60% reaction strength, exceeded only by a range of Artiodactyls. The anti-reindeer serum tests on the same page actually placed whales CLOSER to reindeer than to some other Artiodactyls (experimental error probably applies in this case).
So, WAY BACK IN 1904, a biologist established that whales were phylogenetically connected to Artiodactyl mammals by a quantitative blood serum test.
This result, produced decades before DNA sequencing became a laboratory reality, was the motivation behind the search for connecting fossils, which were duly found.
Once DNA sequencing became an affordable laboratory reality, the phylogenetic tests in question dovetailed exquisitely with Nuttall’s 1904 results.
So, scientists HAVE produced evidence for whale ancestry being grounded in Artiodactyl mammals. Those who assert otherwise are quite simply lying.
As for the lies peddled about proto-whale fossils, these ARE lies. Rodhocetus has never been represented in artist’s renderings with a tail fluke, and indeed, this paper:
covers Peregocetus pacificus, which is described as having a flattened tail like a beaver, not tail flukes, based upon the morphology of the terminal vertebrae. From that paper:
This is the sort of detail you will never find in creationist screeds.
Indeed, the sort of experimental work conducted in the papers I’ve covered above, render the assertion of “gullibility and blind faith” on the part of scientists an egregious lie.
I think this covers relevant bases for now.
This again is bullshit and lies writ large. Since you’ve brought ethics into the equation, I’ll provide the requisite schooling. Viz:
First, there’s the matter that those of us who paid attention in classes devoted to ethics, learned a long time ago that this subject is far more subtle and complex than the fatuous caricature thereof that mythology fanboys embrace, namely “Magic Man says so”.
Which of course is recognised by those of us who paid attention in class, as not merely a caricature of genuine ethics, but a dangerous one, as anyone familiar with Susan B. Anthony’s famous and succinct critique thereof is well aware. In addition, a paper I present below, about differences between secular and religious societies, also has significant input at this juncture. But be patient, there’s a lot more ground to cover before I deliver this.
Second, those of us who paid attention in the requisite classes, learned some time ago of a simple and powerful test that can be performed, to determine the ethical status of an action, that is independent of any “authority” - namely, what benefit or harm is bestowed upon the recipients of the action in question. Being able to perform this test, courtesy of our ability to place ourselves mentally in the situation of others, doesn’t require a cosmic Big Brother, but empathy, a property that is actually to be found possessed by Eutherian mammals all the way down to rodents (about which I shall say more shortly).
Third, humans were constructing ethical and legal codes before the first Abrahamic religions and the associated mythology existed. Perhaps the canonical example is the Code of Urukagina, which was written 2,000 years before said mythology existed. It has the distinction of being the first ethical code to enact prohibitions against slavery and the exploitation of the poor by the rich. Which the Abrahamic Bronze Age mythology failed to do.
Fourth, speaking of said Bronze Age mythology, it not only condones slavery, but devotes fully 260 pages to the matter of exterminating entire indigenous peoples, so that the sociopathic authors thereof can pursue their Bronze Age version of Lebensraum. All of these instances of wanton butchery mentioned within said mythology, are asserted either to have been directly ordered by your cartoon magic man, or given silent assent thereby.
Among said tales of slaughter, is the particularly hideous instance covered in Numbers 31:18, in which said mythology declares it to be “moral”, for the raving hordes in question to kidnap underage girls as rape slaves, after butchering their parents and elder siblings.
The mythology that creationists slavishly devote themselves to, and whose assertions they treat uncritically and dangerously as fact, condones slavery, rape and genocide. The warped and fascistic view of human relations presented therein, provided the pretext for 1,500 years of doctrinally motivated torture and murder in Europe.
Indeed, the real central message emanating from said mythology, consists of “kill all who do not conform”. Instructive instances thereof can be found in Exodus 23:24, Deuteronomy 7:5, Deuteronomy 13: 6-10, Deuteronomy 13: 12-15,Deuteronomy 17:2-5, 2 Chronicles 15:13 , Jeremiah 12: 1-3, and Luke 19:27.
Fifth, the concepts of reciprocity and fairness are to be found distributed much more widely than the usual suspects imagine. Indeed, there now exists an abundant scientific literature, documenting in exquisite detail the evidence for the evolutionary and biological basis of:
[1] our capacity for ethical thought, and;
[2] the motivation to act thereupon.
Among the topics discussed in said literature, are:
[3] The evolution of brain development genes expressed in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that has been known to be implicated in ethical decision making for over a century;
[4] Observed instances of ethical behaviour in non-human species, none of which know about our mythologies or invented cartoon magic men.
With respect to [4] above, I was recently introduced to peer reviewed scientific papers, documenting experimental determination of ethical behaviour in rats. Which have been shown in the laboratory, to reject behaviours that would inflict pain and suffering upon a fellow rat, even when a substantial reward for those behaviours is offered. Seems rats have a better ability to reject avarice than a good many human beings I can think of.
Oh, and the late Frans de Waal provided evidence not only in his numerous peer reviewed scientific papers for the above, but also presented this highly educational YouTube video, featuring the footage from his experiments with reciprocity and fairness in non-human species:
Sixth, this peer reviewed academic paper:
informs us that avowedly secular nations are far better places to live, than religion infected shit holes. The most secular nations covered in that paper, all have lower rates of homicide, juvenile crime, STDs and abortion than the USA.
From that paper:
The idea that a cartoon magic man from a ridiculous Bronze Age mythology, is purportedly “necessary” in order for us to function as ethical beings, has been falsified by vast quantities of observational data.
Seventh, the idea that said imaginary cartoon magic man is purportedly “necessary” for successful ethical behaviour, is also falsified by the number of “pastors”, who featured in the news after being arrested for playing “Hide The Sausage” with 12 year old girls. The list thereof is growing DAILY.
Looks like someone needs to learn how to conduct research properly.
What surprises me is that theists come on here with the exact same arguments we grew up being told when our parents or a loved tried converting us over to Christianity. Most of these people act as though we have either never been introduced to Christianity, or they believe that they have some magic words that’s going to convert us. Hell, most of these people don’t understand the true definition of what evidence is. They believe in the Christian version of evidence, which isn’t evidence at all.
It’s not about whether the summary of the book is everything.
You started out this discussion with a specific request:
We’ve done that. You’ve provided an AI sourced description of what the book stands for, and we’ve provided counter-points. Presuming you have a copy of the book yourself, if you disagree with any of the points we’ve raised, you would have the means to respond to those points.
No we don’t - you stated you found the arguments compelling. We’ve made counter arguments. You haven’t actually engaged with anything we’ve said.
Here’s my questions to you:
By all means, feed our responses back into your AI and ask whether and how they can be countered based on the book’s arguments. See what it has to say, if you’re not able to form your own defence (and I’m not sure why you’re defending it given your claimed motive for the discussion)
First, scientists have found missing links in many species.
Also, just because a finding is wrong and revised later doesn’t disprove the entire fabric of the evolutionary process. Science–when done well–is constantly revising its findings as more is discovered.
The evidence for evolution is beyond overwhelming, and to discount everything because a scientist revised a finding when more information became available is a straw man argument.
Also, if @Skeptic2025 doesn’t know who her/his, for instance, 6 times great grandmother is, there is a missing link in her/his own existence. 
I think you put it too mildly. It is at best disingenious, but most likely it is a directly dishonest “argument” that if coming from a self-confessed christian, one would wonder how sincere they are in following the teachings of that Jebus fella.
We’ll have “no transitional fossils next”. I think creationists might just be incapable of learning, a better example of a closed mind is hard to imagine.
Ok fuck Jewish, Christians or mostly Muslim fucker terrorists. However I am Zionist. These fucking arabs called Palestinians are claiming a holy land that doesn’t belong to them and never did.
OK! Let’s assume there is a God! Why would he create a world and us to play? Is your God a lonely child in heaven, has nothing else to do so he came up with a good idea to create something and PLAY! He created us like a video game? And want us to follow his game or we will be punished or eliminated from his game. Just use your brain for 1 second and you will see how stupid the thought of a God is! I am a medical doctor and have education about all religious, specifically Islam, chris Christianity, Jewish, and just a little bit budism. I have read Bibel(old and new testimony)and Quaran since I was born. So I know EVERYTHING about these religions and can help you and others.
Not sure I follow what your point is here.
Israel existed a long time ago, and at a time became part of the Roman empire, and has later been under various other empires and such.
There was a diaspora - Jewish people moving away from the area for various reasons including conflict and repression, going back 1300+ years ago.
In the late 19th century, Jewish people were returning to the region in small but increasing numbers, leading to the formation of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
So “Palestinians” are literally people who have been living in the region for however long, in the same way that people in other countries have been living where they are for however long.
Modern day Israel sprung up. Whatever one’s views are on the rights of Israel as a modern country, it’s rather a moot point now - Israel exists. But the Palestinian people are not “claiming a holy land that doesn’t belong to them” - they’re literally people who have been living in a region on Earth before a number of people of a particular ethnicity that once had a majority population in a region returned to that region and reformed a nation with the same name as the former nation that ethnicity considered “home”.
Is English your first language Godness?
Why would that matter?