Well clearly it doesn’t, since the geological record demonstrates unequivocally that no global flood has ever occurred. Look at the emboldened part:
It doesn’t…Step 3. The only way to remedy that deficit, is to test the assertion. Either by finding real world observational data that will inform us about the truth-value of the assertion, or deriving a formal proof/disproof thereof in an appropriate formal system. Both of these quantities constitute evidence for the truth-value of the assertion.
I never claimed it was, but this implies that you can demonstrate some objective evidence there was a global flood approximately 22 ft above the highest mountain peak? Off you go then…
Any objective evidence, or rational explanation for the dearth of evidence in the geological record?
So other than quoting my question, can you explain how the human genome is as you claimed evidence for a deity, or why if this claim has any credence, atheism is almost universal among elite biologists? You see those claims are mutually exclusive.
You’re telling other people who are smarter than you that they don’t/can’t comprehend or understand evolution? Seriously? You’re smarter than the entire scientific community is on this topic?
Religion has, and always will be fueled by ignorance and/or arrogance, that I’m sure of.
None of the evidence you mentioned provides any substantiation for a worldwide deluge. Every culture on the planet has flood stories. Every early society on the planet lived near bodies of fresh water; lakes, rivers, oceans and streams, that flooded. Why is this not obvious? People needed water to live. It makes perfect sense that nearly every culture on the planet would have a flood story.
Now, let’s look at the Epic of Gilgamesh, the story the Christians stole their flood story from. This story completely invalidates the story of Noah. But where did the Epic of Gilgamesh come from. Well, it was written by plagerizing an earlier flood story from the Epic of Atrahasis.
Your flood story is bullshit and just one of thousands that have been presented all throughout history.
First of all, you were the one who asked for a simulation. I provided you with an example thereof, which you simply hand-waved away because it didn’t meet your (no doubt deliberately) unspecified definition of “complexity”. Perhaps if you had a rigorous definition of the term to offer, you might be in a position to dismiss summarily a system that demonstrably simulates evolution in action.
Second, since I’m aware of the work on “complexity” by genuine researchers such as Kolmogorov and Chiatin, any change involving the emergence of a new DNA sequence will increase that measure of complexity, if it meets certain conditions (such as not involving mere duplication of a sub-sequence). Or, in a simulation, changes in the simulated genes. More on this will follow in due course.
Third, it’s obvious you didn’t do more than take a cursory look at that page, because it covers mutations and associated behaviours of the bots in the simulation, listed briefly here. But do of course pretend that you’re in a position to dismiss work that has been in progress for 20 years.
If the emergence of a major anatomical change can be considered an increase in “complexity”, then how about the Double Tail mutation in Betta splendens? This mutation appeared in aquarium stocks in the 1970s, and resulted in fish inheriting the mutation possessing two complete tail fins, arranged in over-under shotgun fashion. Each tail has its own distinct caudal plate, and its own distinct set of fin rays emanating from each caudal plate. Better still, the gene in question exhibits single-factor Mendelian recessive inheritance.
Or how about the recent work on mutations in domesticated Goldfish, in which the genes responsible for the emeregence of double tails in that species (veiltails and fantails) have been elucidated? Along with features such as telescope eyes, bubble eyes and the head growths seen in Lionhead and Oranda Goldfish? You can enjoy learning about this latter work in detail courtesy of this document I compiled covering the topic.
Or how about the transition from single celled life forms to multicellular life forms? That transition has been demonstrated experimentally in the laboratory. Relevant papers on the subject include:
De Novo Evolution Of Macroscopic Multicellularity by G. Ozan Bozdag, Seyed Alireza Zamani-Dahaj, Thomas C. Day, Penelope C. Kahn, Anthony J. Burnetti, Dung T. Lac, Kai Tong, Peter L. Conlin, Aishwarya H. Balwani, Eva L. Dyer, Peter J. Yunker & William C. Ratcliff, Nature, 617: 747-754 (25th May 2023) [Paper source here, preprint on bioRxiv here]
Experimental Evolution Of Multicellularity by William C. Ratcliff, R. Ford Denison, Mark Borrello, and Michael Travisano, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 109(5): 1595-1600 (17th January 2012) {Full paper downloadable from here]
Experimental Evolution Of Multicellular Complexity In Saccharomyces cerevisiae by William C. Ratcliff and Michael Travisano, BioScience, 64(5): 383-393 (May 2014) [Full paper downloadable from here
De Novo Origins Of Multicellularity In Response To Predation by Matthew D. Herron, Joshua M. Borin, Jacob C. Boswell, Jillian Walker, I-Chen Kimberly Chen, Charles A. Knox, Margrethe Boyd, Frank Rosenzweig & William C. Ratcliff, Nature Scientific Reports, 9: 2328 (2019) [Full paper downloadable from here]
Phagotrophy By A Flagellate Selects For Colonial Prey: A Possible Origin Of Multicellularity by Martin E. Boraas, Dianne B. Seale & Joseph E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology, 12: 153-164 (1998)
There’s a good deal more in this vein in the literature, but this should suffice for now.
Oh really?
Actually tried this out have you?
No one asserts that this is the result of the same processes. Or did this elementary concept fly past you?
See above and weep.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Keep entertaining this wet dream.
Runs to kitchen for more popcorn and shiraz for self and turkey treats for Captain Cat…I love it when those spinning, razor sharp blades get closer and closer…
Okay, let’s start again… it seems that you’re not understanding me. It’s probably my fault for not communicating properly.
I acknowledge that there are numerous observations demonstrating how complexity emerges in biological entities, and I’m not debating that.
My argument is that I don’t believe these mutations can be attributed solely to random changes and natural selection. This is the point I’m trying to convey. These two mechanisms alone are inadequate in explaining what we observe.
Why do I ask you to show a simulation? Because in simulations, you can easily observe the actual outcome of a mechanism. However, all simulations based solely on random changes and natural selection fail to replicate what we observe. This is what I’m trying to convey to you.
Essentially, you assumed that random changes and natural selection can account for these observations, but I’m telling you they can’t. Presenting new observations of complexity arising doesn’t prove that the underlying mechanism behind these mutations is the one you attribute to it.
Let me reiterate once more. Show me evidence that random changes and natural selection ALONE can produce complex entities.
Warning: I’m not suggesting intelligent design or any paranormal explanations. As I mentioned before, there is a perfectly natural mechanism to explain that.
I’m simply demonstrating how the scientific community has attributed the wrong mechanism to evolution, creating a scientific myth that still remains as the widely accepted mainstream theory despite its flaws.
I have already shown you that with the articles I have posted. WTF are you on about? That in no way at all disqualifies random mutation or natural selection as determining factors in evolution. So there are other factors as well… So the fuck What? These factors are significant factors and a lot of other factors you are going to name are actually going to be covered by natural selection anyway. Natural selection is a bitch to get away from.
If a mutation confers a survival or reproductive advantage upon the individuals inheriting said mutation, said mutation is selectable by definition. No fucking “assumptions” involved.
You do realise scientists have tests for whether or not a feature is selectable, and whether or not the genes involved underwent selection?
Oh look, it’s goalpost shifting time. Quelle surprise.
First you asserted that mutation and selection cannot produce complexity, full stop. Now you’re changing your story. A good sign that you’ve been caught with your discoursive trousers around your ankles.
Oh wait, Motoo Kimura introduced neutral drift back in 1989. You’re nearly 40 years behind the times.
And of course, a random dude on the Internet knows more than tens of thousands of tenured professional scientists … not.
Well, this means that random changes and natural selection alone are not responsible for producing the mutations that you observe. This is a significant finding.
Well, the paper I’m going to present is not from the 80s but from 2022. Good luck aligning the neutral mutation theory with this.
Since the first half of the twentieth century, evolutionary theory has been dominated by the idea that mutations occur randomly with respect to their consequences[1]. Here we test this assumption with large surveys of de novo mutations in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana . In contrast to expectations, we find that mutations occur less often in functionally constrained regions of the genome—mutation frequency is reduced by half inside gene bodies and by two-thirds in essential genes. With independent genomic mutation datasets, including from the largest Arabidopsis mutation accumulation experiment conducted to date, we demonstrate that epigenomic and physical features explain over 90% of variance in the genome-wide pattern of mutation bias surrounding genes. Observed mutation frequencies around genes in turn accurately predict patterns of genetic polymorphisms in natural Arabidopsis accessions (r = 0.96). That mutation bias is the primary force behind patterns of sequence evolution around genes in natural accessions is supported by analyses of allele frequencies. Finally, we find that genes subject to stronger purifying selection have a lower mutation rate. We conclude that epigenome-associated mutation bias[2] reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations in Arabidopsis , challenging the prevailing paradigm that mutation is a directionless force in evolution.
Moreover, the idea that mutations are neutral in complex organisms could provide evidence that mutations are not random. In the case of random mutations in complex organisms, we would expect the majority of mutations to be deleterious, resulting in offspring that are less fit than their predecessors. This would exclude the possibility of evolution. However, the fact that the majority of mutations are neutral is highly unexpected, suggesting that these mutations may not be random after all. Subsequently, we have come across papers that present evidence challenging the notion of random mutations. These findings demonstrate that mainstream science has been accepting a wrong or incomplete mechanism despite the presence of evidence contradicting it.
Now you are starting to notice that perhaps something is wrong in the way you have been understanding evolution all this time. Maybe it’s not as simple as winning easily by flooding it with papers. Well, as I mentioned before, stay calm. This is just the beginning.
It appears that the blades are starting to break and lose momentum… Oh, remain calm. This is merely the beginning.
As I mentioned earlier, I have engaged in this debate on numerous occasions. I am quite certain that the current theory of evolution, which is based on random mutations and natural selection, is incorrect. There have been no simulations that provide any evidence supporting this mechanism in accordance with our observations.
This demonstrates that science can uphold myths even when the evidence against them is quite apparent.
I only require one paper to initiate the dismantling of your own scientific myths, and there is more to follow.
I’m asking you again, you think you’re smarter than evolutionary biologists, that you understand evolution, and everyone else is wrong?
Holy shit, here comes the arrogance again.
Where did I say I’m smarter than evolutionary biologists?
I don’t need to be smarter; I only need to formulate the correct questions. The problem with acquiring knowledge from others is that you also inherit their errors. The issue at hand is not one of intelligence but of not blindly accepting premises.
Furthermore, I’m not alone in this view. There are evolutionary biologists who disagree with the current understanding of evolution.
They need inexplicable magic, from an unevidenced deity no doubt? I wouldn’t buy a suit for the Nobel ceremony if I were you.
Occam’s razor
The explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is usually correct. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.
We know evolution is a fact, we now those outcomes are a fact, the only assumption I see is that an unevidenced deity is required, using inexplicable magic?
LOOK AROUND YOU…!!!
Ah, you have objective evidence for another cause? off you go then, when you get your Nobel prize I can tell people you broke the news here to me first.
Quite certain you say, well that’s different, I had no idea we were dealing with a closed mind. Now when are you going to explain how rocks evolved sentience? I promise i won’t leak any of it until you accept your Nobel prize.
Ah, only your paper on ESP turned out to be BS, just as well I didn’t “alert the media” yet.
When you asserted that people who have dedicated their lives to scientific field of biology are all wrong, and you are right, come come this is no tie for false modesty you’ve bested them all, even Darwin. I am glued to the telly watching the news, waiting for the story to break, nothing yet though???
You mean like creationists who are taught bs, but are also taught it is the immutable word of an infallible deity, so cling to it doggedly? Does anyone have a functioning irony meter, mine seems to have gone to its reward.
Are any of them not creationists? Has even one of them had their work peer reviewed and collected a Nobel prize for altering the way the world understand evolution?
Ignore the question marks, those are rhetorical questions.
You have not read my argument, nor have you read the paper I presented. Instead, you are making your own claims as usual and engaging in a debate with yourself rather than with me.
I have already answered this question.
Has this paper been retracted by the journal? No, please wait until I conduct a thorough analysis of all the data you cited in order to discredit it.
I’m not alone, read the paper, thank you.
Maybe I don’t know them personally; I only know what is published.
Yes I have, and no I have not read the paper. Science is not altered by subjective opinions on the internet, you don’t appear to understand that. If the scientific world validates your claim then I would accept it, until then it I will accept what the objective evidence shows, and that is reflected in the accepted scientific theory of evolution.
So you claim, yet the scientific theory of evolution has not been altered, nor have you received a Nobel prize, so I am going to make this as simple as I know how:
Scientific theories are not altered by anonymous posters in chat rooms.
I don’t need your subjective input, again this is not how science works. If this paper, or any paper for that matter, had demonstrated compelling evidence for ESP, we’d know about it, and the research dates from the 70’s.
Scientific theories are not altered by anonymous posters in chat rooms.
This doesn’t seem to be sinking in?
I don’t care, take your claims to a scientific forum, get your work peer reviewed, alter the scientific world’s understanding of evolution, significantly alter the theory of evolution, collect your Nobel prize, then come back and say I told you so. Until then your claims are risible:
Scientific theories are not altered by anonymous posters in chat rooms.
Do you really imagine you are the first theist t come here and do this?
Why are you bringing these claims to an atheist debate forum? A scientific forum is the proper venue no?
Interestingly, when you assumed I was going to present an argument for creationism, you didn’t mention that a scientific forum would be the appropriate venue. Now that you realize you may lose this debate and will be forced to admit that the theory of evolution, as you (and many others) have described it, is incorrect, you want me to go elsewhere.
What has this to do with your risible belief that you can alter mainstream science’s understanding of evolution in an atheist debate forum?
It wasn’t pure assumption either, as it was based on quite a bit of objective evidence, the number of theists who have come here and made similar or identical arguments before you, priming the heathens for their gotcha moment and a false dichotomy fallacy, also your own penchant for unevidenced superstition in a creator deity etc etc.
Hmm?
I have to ask now, is English not your first language? lets try again then:
Scientific theories are not altered by anonymous posters in chat rooms.
So given this fact, how would one lose a debate with someone claiming they can do precisely that?
I also never suggested you go elsewhere, anyone who wants to can scroll up and see I asked two questions, questions you ignored unsurprisingly.
There it is again then, verbatim for everyone to see you have lied again.
