Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think turning public (secular) schools into Christian madrassahs is the perfect solution. We can churn out legions of vacant minded creationists whose rote memorization of the bible hasn't prepared them for the concept of a spherical earth.Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.
Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.
over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.
So let's figure the reproductive impact.
P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation
The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.
B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p
p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U
B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?
females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.
But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.
This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.
It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.
It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.
Ask away. Any question you wish. Better?
So hell; let me start: did God evolve or was He created by a higher god(s)?
The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.
The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.
Ask away. Any question you wish. Better?
So hell; let me start: did God evolve or was He created by a higher god(s)?
I'll answer your question with a question. Did ONE PLUS ONE always EQUAL TWO?
Only excuses for an obvious bias, ywc?
What you're hoping to avoid is addressing that on the part of creationist, there is an obvious need to promote the creationist view, not seek facts.
Really Hollie ? I just presented you with the facts evolution over millions of years through mutations is the fairytale.
No; you didn't. Bear in mind, it's merely bullshit pseudoscience designed so the Christians whose faiths may be fragile in the light of current human understanding, can quench doubts that science is building within them.
It's not designed to in fact discredit what actual scientists, adhering to scientific method, know to be utterly beyond reproach: life evolved on Earth and was not placed here by any intelligent being that has left the slightest trace of his/her/its existence, much less proof of the creation point, method and source.
Simple truth, pursuant to the 9th Commandment.
Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct!
the rest was edited for lack of actual scientific content ...
It was an accurate number daws but that was before the Genome was mapped.
Really, dear, it's difficult to know what you presented as you provided no source. Which is just as well because having to slog through creationist websites to find that source is tedious and frustrating.Only excuses for an obvious bias, ywc?
What you're hoping to avoid is addressing that on the part of creationist, there is an obvious need to promote the creationist view, not seek facts.
Really Hollie ? I just presented you with the facts evolution over millions of years through mutations is the fairytale.
Why are you arbitrarily going to account for all of existence being at the sweeping hand of gawds which you claim are eternal, uncreated, etc., etc.? Why are you arbitrarily excusing your gawds from being created? Why not super gawds who are the creators of your sectarian gawds?
Of course it helps if we first decide what it is we mean (or meant) by "gawd" as it applies to ones beliefs in a supernatural being, the "creator of all", the "Big Cheese", and being consigned to heaven or hell. I must confess to an assumption here; that is, when I enter into theistic debates I assume for the sake of efficiency that your "gawds" are defined in the Judeo-Christian vein, i.e., an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural being who exists both eternally in the past and into the future, etc., etc., etc. I should stop assuming that of course, but the vast majority of debates stem from that definition, so allow me the mea culpa
Your primary contention with the science of evolution appears to be for you, an irresolvable dilemma with timelines: the indisputable fact of an ancient earth vs. the biblical take of a young earth. A simple solution to this entire gawds issue would be for the gawds to make their presence known in a clearly defined way. Maybe a first start would be for the creation tale to not delineate things in terms of "days" at all then. Why would the divine being purposely use a term that humans would use within their own context, thus purposely obscuring the true nature of reality?
I don't buy typical apologists' claims that only through their particular interpretation can "the will of the gawds" be understood. We're talking about a book that was written not too distantly from the building of the pyramids-- clearly in certain areas humans were quite advanced. And even within the book itself concepts of "eternity" are brought to light, so why don't the gods just state the "facts" as they are? "In the first 1 billion years...."
For eternal gawds who are, on the one hand excused for being obscure regarding "time" related issues to suddenly have some problem with the idea that within about 4000 years of the writing of your "holy text", (given the biblical timeline) humans would advance enough to be able to make credible interpretations of the clues of creation is self-defeating the original proposition that gawds would "speak" in obscure ways about time.
Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.
Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.
over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.
So let's figure the reproductive impact.
P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation
The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.
B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p
p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U
B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?
females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.
But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.
This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.
It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
not to worry np, what he's not making up is cut and paste pseudoscience.
Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.
Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.
over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.
So let's figure the reproductive impact.
P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation
The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.
B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p
p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U
B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?
females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.
But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.
This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.
It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.
Ask away. Any question you wish. Better?
So hell; let me start: did God evolve or was He created by a higher god(s)?
what claim are you trying to make about the human genome?
not to worry np, what he's not making up is cut and paste pseudoscience.Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.
Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.
over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.
So let's figure the reproductive impact.
P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation
The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.
B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p
p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U
B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?
females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.
But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.
This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.
It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
stop whining like a bitch, if as you creationists do, set yourself against actual fact and attempt to replace with unfounded and unprovable folk tales, you cannot and should not expect to be shown any respect as you do not respect the opposing pov.Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.
Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.
over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.
So let's figure the reproductive impact.
P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation
The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.
B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p
p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U
B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?
females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.
But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.
This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.
It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.
The fact is your bias against any religious reasoning is what makes me fully understand why secular education is a detriment to learning. If evolutionists were treated the way you treat creationists, the world might be a better place; however, no one would be able to pose a question.
Ask away. Any question you wish. Better?
So hell; let me start: did God evolve or was He created by a higher god(s)?
What is the point you could not give an honest and non-bias answer,you have already demostrated that.
wrong as always.not to worry np, what he's not making up is cut and paste pseudoscience.It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
I told you before if it got technical you would not understand.
Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct at one time. Scientists claimed and they were right this number was to high so they had to try and explain this evidence away because they knew this rate was to high for humans to survive without going extinct for as long as evolutionist claim man has been here on this planet. So to explain this problem away they turn to synergistic epistasis to try and explain this evidence away but since mapping of the human Genome this became an even larger problem and made their explanation rediculous.
Eyre, Walker and Keightley By comparing human and chimp differences in protein coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious harmful mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation this is in agreement with your video. Since the mapping of the Genome the deleterious mutation rate is much higher.
over time harmful mutations outpace beneficial ones to fixation, evolution from molecules to man surely cannot occur.
So let's figure the reproductive impact.
P=probability a genome does not receive a new defect this generation
The female must reproduce 2 offspring one to replace her and her mate just to maintain the current poplation.
B will represent the birth threshold B = 2/p
p of an offspring escaping error free is given by e^-U
B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female so what do these figures mean ?
females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium anything under the average of 10 would lead to certain genetic deterioration. No way could a woman average 10 offspring for 4 to 6 million years so man should be extinct not a population of growth over 4 to 6 million years. Don't forget Eyre, Walker and Keightley already figured in natural selection in their figure of U=1.6 that your video confirmed.
But it gets worse since the mapping of the the Genome the actual figure of deletrious mutations (harmful) is U=3.1 and this has natural selection figured in to it. By doing the same math for man to exist for 4 to 6 million years it means a female would have had to had 40 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium. That is maintaing a population not growing a population.
This is strong evidence that man has only been on this planet for a short period of time let's say 6,000 years. We now have over 6,000 genetic disorders so what is happening man is deteriorating not improving fitness. If God does not come soon it will lead to the extinction of man but we have the promise from God this will not happen. This is why you will see genetic disorders continue to grow in number.
It really is scary to think you were a biologist with this kind of insanely fallacious reasoning you just demonstrated. I fear the outcome of whatever you were working on, and can honestly only hope no one was harmed. It really is quite sad to see.
The fact that you think the genome is deteriorating with each meiosis event and fertilization, is astounding. What's really telling is that you have no evidence or explanation of how this would happen, yet you are a biologist. If you had a hypothesis that was worth considering to explain your "fact," maybe people would listen. Until then, relying on non-descriptive math is meaningless without evidence. You attempt the same fallacy as Meyer who tries to disprove abiogenesis using probability when he is ignorant to the conditions that would have created the event, making his numbers non-descriptive of any reality, and thus holding no explanatory power.
It is a fact jack .We are accumulating more harmful mutations then we can get rid of. It's like this. A person thinks they can be rich if they contiue to spend more then they bring in,kinda like Obama. Unless you would like to present a number on beneficial mutation rate and compare it to the harmful mutation rate.
I didn't think so.
those clips were done after The Human Genome Project was declared complete in April 2003.Your video claimed U=1.6 this is correct!
the rest was edited for lack of actual scientific content ...
It was an accurate number daws but that was before the Genome was mapped.
so you're talking out your ass...but hey, you always are.
Patently false. Most are neutral. The beneficial ones lead to reproduction (get copied) The harmful ones do not get reproduced (go away)
Now you know.
