Philosophy Now Forum

"Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation " Michael Lynch.

Thus, although there is considerable uncertainty in the preceding numbers, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the per-generation reduction in fitness due to recurrent mutation is at least 1% in humans and quite possibly as high as 5%.

Muller (49) was well aware of the enormous social barriers to solving the mutation-accumulation problem, but he held out hope that “a rationally directed guidance of reproduction” (for atheists who cant read nor think, this is code for genocide/eugenics) would eventually stabilize the situation.

2 Thessalonian 11

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

If someone believes all life shares a common ancestor with a fish that person is delusional.

Conclusion: 'Evolution' never happened. "Evolution"= the most powerful delusion EVER.

Of course, since the entire field of biology is built around evolution, it too is a myth.

Please do not conflate science (observable phenomena) with making up myths about a process that has never been observed (an animal bringing forth a completely different kind of animal ie a fish bringing forth a dog). Thank you.

jinx wrote:Please do not conflate science (observable phenomena) with making up myths about a process that has never been observed (an animal bringing forth a completely different kind of animal ie a fish bringing forth a dog). Thank you.

Are Adam and Eve EVERYONES ancestors?

.









..........................................................................













.......................................................








.

Are Adam and Eve EVERYONES ancestors?

Yes.

jinx wrote:Please do not conflate science (observable phenomena) with making up myths about a process that has never been observed (an animal bringing forth a completely different kind of animal ie a fish bringing forth a dog). Thank you.

Thanks for what? As you've misrepresented what the Theory of Evolution says, i.e. that a fish can give birth to a dog. It does not propose this.

Do you think Physics is a science? If so how do you account for all the unobservable phenomena in there?

Your 'God' is an unobservable phenomena, a thing or process never observed, presumably this makes your belief in it a belief in a myth and definitely an unscientific thought.

As you've misrepresented what the Theory of Evolution says, i.e. that a fish can give birth to a dog. It does not propose this.

Neodarwinian 'evolution' says all life that is and ever was (cats, ants, birds, whales, dolphins, caterpillars, t-rex, brachiosaurus, wooly mammoths, porcupines, koalas, kangaroos, chimpanzees and mankind) shares a common ancestor with a fish 3. 5 billion years ago through random mutation + natural selection. One kind of animal producing a completely different kind has never been observed hence the myth i just described is religion not science.

Do you think Physics is a science? If so how do you account for all the unobservable phenomena in there?

Light cannot be used to resolve some things so electrons are used, hence the term observed is used to encompass the possibility of using light to see. i dont know what unobservable phenomena you speak of.


Your 'god' (Darwin) is an unobservable phenomena, a thing or process never observed, presumably this makes your belief in it a belief in a myth and definitely an unscientific thought.

jinx wrote:Neodarwinian 'evolution' says all life that is and ever was (cats, ants, birds, whales, dolphins, caterpillars, t-rex, brachiosaurus, wooly mammoths, porcupines, koalas, kangaroos, chimpanzees and mankind) shares a common ancestor with a fish 3. 5 billion years ago through random mutation + natural selection. One kind of animal producing a completely different kind has never been observed hence the myth i just described is religion not science.

You mean the tetrapods? Or this? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 133032.htm

Mutations in animals are being observed all the time? Because you only have 6000 years to work with you have trouble understanding the Theory of Evolution and how small variations and natural selection can produce all the forms we see. You keep thinking there has to be a kaboom moment because you have the belief in a 'creator'.

Light cannot be used to resolve some things so electrons are used, hence the term observed is used to encompass the possibility of using light to see. i dont know what unobservable phenomena you speak of.

Well, 'Light' for a start and what are these 'electrons' you talk about?

Your 'god' (Darwin) is an unobservable phenomena, a thing or process never observed, presumably this makes your belief in it a belief in a myth and definitely an unscientific thought.

Darwin was a man. I have no 'God/s' in the sense of an entity or entities that can interfere with Physics as it'd make a mockery of Science.

Would you accept a photograph as evidence of an observable phenomema?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hcbg8ym_2p0/T ... /7i7wl.jpg

Care to post yours of your 'God'?

.






,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,









.......................................................









........................................................






.

.












.............................................................................................











.

jinx wrote:Thus, although there is considerable uncertainty in the preceding numbers, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the per-generation reduction in fitness due to recurrent mutation is at least 1% in humans and quite possibly as high as 5%.

You can't just drop a percentage without detailing what it means and how it is calculated. Please explain.

If your 5% fitness reduction continues for 50 generations, overall fitness will have been reduced with 95%. Suppose that there is a 2.5% fitness reduction per generation and we are 200 generations away from Adam and Eve. Then fitness has been reduced since 4000BC with (1 - 0.975^200)*100 = 99.3677%. Interesting phenomena, isn't it?

As you can see, an overall reduction in fitness per generation will inevitably lead to the species' extinction eventually.

Bill Wiltrack wrote: a video

Pretty but factually wrong in many of its sequences.

You can't just drop a percentage without detailing what it means and how it is calculated. Please explain.

If your 5% fitness reduction continues for 50 generations, overall fitness will have been reduced with 95%. Suppose that there is a 2.5% fitness reduction per generation and we are 200 generations away from Adam and Eve. Then fitness has been reduced since 4000BC with (1 - 0.975^200)*100 = 99.3677%. Interesting phenomena, isn't it?

As you can see, an overall reduction in fitness per generation will inevitably lead to the species' extinction eventually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_edD5HOx6Q0

jinx wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_edD5HOx6Q0

Interesting video. He raises some good points about the shortcoming of evolutionary theory but that's as far as it goes.

Other than that we have a scientist doing ontology. More specifically he is putting forward metaphysical monistic explanations for science.

I don't have a problem with that so long as he doesn't think he is doing science.