Good Guy Greg

Scientific evidence for the bible? such as?

Well for example: Atheists believe life started from one single cell, but where did that cell come from? The amino acids and porphyrins nessisary for a cell to survive cannot exist together outside of a cell. Here is a quote that explains it far better than I can:

“If amino acids can only be made where there is no free oxygen in the atmosphere, and porphyrins can only be made when there is free oxygen, then these things needed by every cell could not have existed together to form the first cell! What’s more, many of these compounds are antagonistic. They will combine and destroy each other—anywhere except within a living cell.”
? Lawrence O. Richards, It Couldn't Just Happen: Knowing the Truth About God's Awesome Creation

"Atheists believe life started from one single cell"

This is an incorrect assumption; no functioning model of abiogenisis states that all life descends from a singular instance of protocellular formation. Additionally, it is not as though atheists are the only ones who believe in a chemical-synthesis origin of life; many (if not most) people of faith accept that this is what the science indicates.

“If amino acids can only be made where there is no free oxygen in the atmosphere, and porphyrins can only be made when there is free oxygen, then these things needed by every cell could not have existed together to form the first cell!"

Actually, amino acids and porphyrins most certainly can exist together; they form under different circumstances, but can still coexist and interact with one another.

"many of these compounds are antagonistic. They will combine and destroy each other—anywhere except within a living cell.”

While some of the compounds required for unicellular life do break and reassemble each other in most circumstances, none of them are required to synthesize complex self-replicating polymers, essential lipids, or lipid bilayers, the building blocks of cellular environments.

"no functioning model of abiogenisis states that all life descends from a singular instance of protocellular formation."

Really now? I've never been an atheist so I might be incorrect, but literally every secular source I've ever come across states that life began when lightning struck an unknown combination of chemicals which in tern supposedly created the 1st cell, which then replicated itself and eventually evolved into the most primitive species. Is there some other explanation that is widely believed by atheists these days?

"Additionally, it is not as though atheists are the only ones who believe in a chemical-synthesis origin of life; many (if not most) people of faith accept that this is what the science indicates."

You think I am not aware of this? I am well aware that there are those who have created a compromise between faith and secular science so as not to upset the culture. Understandable, but as seen time and time again, Christians aren't suppose to go with the cultural flow. Just look what happened to them in Rome? And there are worse conditions for Christians in some modern countries than even back then.

"Actually, amino acids and porphyrins most certainly can exist together; they form under different circumstances, but can still coexist and interact with one another."

I'll admit, I was wrong about them not being able to co exist, but when the literal opposite circumstances are required for each to be formed, they could not have existed in the same place. Furthermore, with no life to experiment with them, they couldn't have been put together in the evirment along with whatever other chemicals might've been in that supposed mix.

I don't have anthing to say on that last thing. What? I believe in a being that knows everything, that doesn't mean I do. Although that doesn't disprove the Bible I suppose. Just that one statement I pasted in my other reply. What do you know. I did have something to say.

"literally every secular source I've ever come across states that life began when lightning struck an unknown combination of chemicals which in tern supposedly created the 1st cell... Is there some other explanation that is widely believed by atheists these days?"

Well then, I guess you haven't seen many secular sources. There are numerous models, and none even claim to know exactly how life originated; they are hypothetical models on how it could have happened that are to be tested or disproven by further scientific experimentation or observation. But none of them are "believed" in the sense that people think any one of them to be the unequivocal correct answer; exactly how life originated is not know, but our understanding of the subject is ever expanding.

"with no life to experiment with them, they couldn't have been put together in the e[n]vir[on]ment along with whatever other chemicals might've been in that supposed mix."

You don't need living things to move objects; there are tides, currents, and geothermal activity that move such chemicals around naturally. They could, for example, admix on the sea floor where geothermal and current forces would distribute them from their respective locations of synthesis and allow them to mingle in the same environment.

"I am well aware that there are those who have created a compromise between faith and secular science so as not to upset the culture."

It is ignorant to assume that cultural pressure, rather than logic and reasoning, must be the only reason why some people of faith believe scientific reasoning is a more reliable way of understanding the world than taking a 3000 year old anthology of iron-age Israelite oral traditions at face value. Indeed, the cultural pressure to adhere strictly to religious doctrine long transcends any kind of cultural pressure toward secularism, and people who chose scientific reasoning over religious orthodoxy were going strongly against the cultural pressure of the time, rather than with it, for centuries.

"There are numerous models, and none even claim to know exactly how life originated; they are hypothetical models on how it could have happened that are to be tested or disproven by further scientific experimentation or observation. But none of them are "believed" in the sense that people think any one of them to be the unequivocal correct answer; exactly how life originated is not know, but our understanding of the subject is ever expanding."

Well, the more you know.

"It is ignorant to assume that cultural pressure, rather than logic and reasoning, must be the only reason why some people of faith believe scientific reasoning is a more reliable way of understanding the world than taking a 3000 year old anthology of iron-age Israelite oral traditions at face value."

You make it sound as though those who have faith are ignorant. But that's besides the point.

"Indeed, the cultural pressure to adhere strictly to religious doctrine long transcends any kind of cultural pressure toward secularism, and people who chose scientific reasoning over religious orthodoxy were going strongly against the cultural pressure of the time, rather than with it, for centuries."

True, but most preferred the idea of many gods rather than one, which is why being a Christian was also heavily antagonized. Even by the Jews, who believed in the ONE TRUE GOD (all caps for respect, not emphasis), but didn't believe JESUS to be HIS son.

"True, but most preferred the idea of many gods rather than one, which is why being a Christian was also heavily antagonized."

I'm talking specifically about Christian Europe during the Renaissance, where Christendom is the dominant culture and anyone who deviated from it did so at their own peril, and those that "antagonized" it were routinely lynched and executed.

"You make it sound as though those who have faith are ignorant."

The concept of faith is not inherently ignorant. Indeed, the majority of Christians today do not allow new scientific discoveries to compromise their faith, but instead refuse to remain ignorant and accept the evidence; their faith is in God, not the preachings of other people who try to tell them in what way they must understand scripture. They don't feel disillusioned to God's existence just because science does not support creationism, but are happy to be strong in their faith despite the fact; there is nothing about that, in my opinion, that warrants the title of "ignorance."

"I'm talking specifically about Christian Europe during the Renaissance, where Christendom is the dominant culture and anyone who deviated from it did so at their own peril, and those that "antagonized" it were routinely lynched and executed."

That was extreme, and while cultural pressure to be secular is not that extreme, but it tie pretty strong. I've heard of religious people being discriminated against simply because of their beliefs. Not just Christians mind you, I also mean Muslims,

((Accidently hit post before I meant to on that last comment. :P))

Hindus, Buddests, etc as well.

"Indeed, the majority of Christians today do not allow new scientific discoveries to compromise their faith, but instead refuse to remain ignorant and accept the evidence; their faith is in God, not the preachings of other people who try to tell them in what way they must understand scripture. They don't feel disillusioned to God's existence just because science does not support creationism, but are happy to be strong in their faith despite the fact; there is nothing about that, in my opinion, that warrants the title of "ignorance.""

I am glad you don't see us as inherently ignorant. That is a problem I have faced in the past.

Also: Perhaps you think science doesn't support creationism, but probability isn't exactly on the secular side. Do you have any idea how many things would've gone wrong if it were left to chance? It would be easier for a blind man in one attempt to find a single specially marked grain of sand in every beach on earth.

"And even if they didn't, it wouldn't be GOD's 1st miracle."

Dismissing evidence by citing miracles as an explanation has no place whatsoever in scientific discussion. It is not a claim based on logical reasoning, but rather one that regards the very concept of scientific reasoning irrelevant. Far from constituting any kind of evidence, it is instead a claim that the truth is non-evident, and that all observable scientific evidence must be considered invalid, because any observable law of nature can be indiscernibly suspended at any instance by an omnipotent being. To maintain that a believe is correct, dismissing any evidence to the contrary solely on the grounds that anything is possible, is the logical equivalent of just saying, "nuh-uh." Once this nullification of logical reasoning is on the table, someone can easily disregard any evidence you provide for the existence of God or the accuracy of the Bible by simply saying that you can never know for sure, because at any time the very nature of existence could be drastically altered in favor of their claim by supernatural forces. Because absolutely any position whatsoever can be argued or defended by this approach, it is, in and of itself, logically useless. Such a defense can not be used unless your position has been completely and unequivocally proven, at which point, there is no longer any need to defend your position in the first place.

"...adaptation couldn't make it (the gene) a more dominant gene to create a higher survival rate?"

Correct; the relationship between phenotypical expressions of the same allele is a circumstance on which adaptation has no effect; the two phenomena are essentially unrelated. The example you give concerning disease is rare, though, because most genes having to do with disease resistance tend to be codominant.

"Dismissing evidence by citing miracles as an explanation has no place whatsoever in scientific discussion. (And what followed)"

Asking me to prove GOD's existence without using HIM as a factor is the same as me asking you to prove evolution happened without using evolution as a factor. And besides that, it's not like it's any weaker of an argument than "It's not like our planet is the only one out there; in fact, there is likely at least one-hundred quintillion of them in the observable universe. So even if the chances of there being a planet capable of supporting life in our universe are as infinitesimally small as one in one-hundred quintillion, there could still easily be one capable of supporting life." Saying the universe is so big that every possible thing that could've formed did is just as bad an argument. I let it skied at the time because that before I had asked for GOD's aid in this debate, but now that I have HIM guiding me I can see how weak this argument is.

I meant to submit this earlier, but for some reason it didn't go through, so here it is:

"Saying the universe is so big that every possible thing that could've formed did is just as bad an argument."

You are misrepresenting my argument. I didn't say that anything that could have happened did; I pointed out that given the frequency probability and sample size at hand, the chances of a planet being circumstantially capable of supporting life is extremely high. This is in no way akin to the non-argument of supposing miraculous causes. My argument is based on quantitative reasoning and scientific evidence; yours is based on a suspension of the laws of physics and mathematics to the point where scientific observation and deductive reasoning are rendered irrelevant.

"Asking me to prove GOD's existence without using HIM as a factor is the same as me asking you to prove evolution happened without using evolution as a factor."

I don't need to use evolutionary theory as presuppositional evidence to support its own claims. Nor does one necessarily need to act likewise in order to argue for the existence of God; but to suppose an inevident act of creationism in order to dismiss evidence against it is a classic example of circular logic.

"I pointed out that given the frequency probability and sample size at hand, the chances of a planet being circumstantially capable of supporting life is extremely high."

If by high you mean one in 700 quintillion. A Swedish astrophysicists named Erik Zackrisson created a model of the universe timeline starting with the Big Bang, to calculate how many planets like earth there might be. However, his model yielded very different results than expected, as earth almost never properly formed no matter how many times the simulation was run. So statistically, the probability is extremely low.

"but to suppose an inevident act of creationism in order to dismiss evidence against it is a classic example of circular logic."

I don't like it any more than you, but GOD doesn't always follow the rules of logic or physics. However, thinking of it now that I've done more proper research I see why HE didn't need to. As I said, the genepool shrinks to accomidate both people and animals to whatever local area they settle in. That's why colder regions have creatures with longer fur and hotter regions have creatures with shorter fur. And so since genepools shrink, Nah must've had a much larger genepool than any modern humans, large enough for almost the entire modern genome.
But if you want to mention circular logic than look no further than the evolutionary fossil record. The fossil evidence that life has evolved from simple to complex forms over the geological ages depends on the geological ages of the specific rocks in which these fossils are found. The rocks, however, are assigned geologic ages based on the fossil assemblages which they contain. The fossils, in turn, are arranged on the basis of their assumed evolutionary relationships. That sounds like circular logic to me.

"If by high you mean one in 700 quintillion…"

Zackrisson's work is not calibrated to conditions suitable for life, but for a planet being as similar to earth as possible, including parameters concerning heavy-element percentage composition, size, age, etc.. which are not circumstances directly linked to whether or not a planet can support life.

"the genepool shrinks to accomidate both people and animals to whatever local area they settle in."

This model still would not result in the genetic distribution we have today without beneficial genetic mutations, as I last mentioned, since it still wouldn't explain codominant or incomplete-dominant beneficial mutations that exist only among one population while being completely absent from all other populations that share a most recent common ancestral population with them.

"GOD doesn't always follow the rules of logic or physics."

I think you're missing the point. To claim that logic itself and any evidence against your hypothesis are irrelevant, on the grounds that your belief involves an omnipotent being, is logically meaningless. Literally any baseless assumption can be defended in this manner. In order for such reasoning to have any relevance whatsoever, you must first prove that your belief correct (at which point there is no longer a need to use it.) Otherwise, it's no different from saying, "it doesn't matter what the facts are, I could still be right."

"But if you want to mention circular logic than look no further than the evolutionary fossil record."

First of all, determining evolutionary relationship temporally within the fossil record requires relative but not absolute dating. Regardless, the geological ages of sediment are not determined by what fossils are found within it unless the ages of said fossils have already been proven. Otherwise, myriad other methods can be used to date sediments or rocks, and hence the fossils within them.

"Zackrisson's work is not calibrated to conditions suitable for life, but for a planet being as similar to earth as possible,"

Even so, it doesn't change the fact that if a planet weren't near identical to earth in almost every aspect it would not be able to support life, and even then the odds of life forming are small, meaning the 1 in 700 quintillion is close to accurate as far as the odds of life forming.

"This model still would not result in the genetic distribution we have today without beneficial genetic mutations. etc..."

It still shrinks, just not as fast as I originally thought.

"I think you're missing the point. etc..."

And you missed mine. I revved my earlier statement, as HE wouldn't have a reason to do so, and everything HE ever has or ever will do has some purpose. As I stated, I am not fond of the idea of being subject to a being who defies physics and logic, but attempting to wrap our minds around how HE works scientifically is like trying to teach particle physics to a fly. Even our greatest minds couldn't begin to comprehend him. Thankfully, we don't need to discuss that as HE left plenty of evidence we can comprehend of his existence.

"Otherwise, myriad other methods can be used to date sediments or rocks, and hence the fossils within them."

Such as potassium argon radiodating? A 10 year old stone was put through the process, and was dated to be a million years old.

"You only answered half the question... you didn't answer what makes the higher survival rate genes appear more frequently"

Yes, I did explain how genes that provide a survival/reproductive advantage are more likely to be passed on to the next generation. If you don't understand what I am saying, you'll have to be more specific in your question, such that I can address the source of the confusion more concisely.

"So it became a highly recessive gene."

That's not how gene dominance/recession works. In fact, the very term "dominant gene" is somewhat of a misnomer; there is nothing about the allele codons themselves that makes them dominant over others. Rather, whether a trait is dominant, codominant, incomplete-dominant, dominant-negative, recessive, etc.. is determined almost entirely by the relationship between the respective phenotypical expressions. The very idea of an allele "becoming recessive" doesn't really make sense, even beyond the fact that such a collateral genetic transmutation is entirely impossible on the scale of a population. And that is not even to mention the fact that a recessive gene does not in any way disappear from a population; its phenotype is simply unexpressed.

"The dominant gene doesn't always get picked. Maybe it remained dominant in parts of the world where milk is regularly drunken but somewhat recessive in places where it is not consumed often."

Again, an allele cannot somehow change to become intrinsically recessive. Indeed, the very nature of the lactase persistence gene makes it impossible for it to be recessive, because all alternative alleles are denoted by the very lack of a trait to express, which means that lactase persistence must be expressed in any heterozygus individual. But regardless, even if it could be or become recessive, it would still be present in the population, not completely absent. I'm also not sure what you think whether or not a population drinks milk has anything to do with the gene's dominance.

"Yes, I did explain how genes that provide a survival/reproductive advantage are more likely to be passed on to the next generation."

You did not. You explained how the change would happen, not the force that prompts the change to happen.

"And that is not even to mention the fact that a recessive gene does not in any way disappear from a population; its phenotype is simply unexpressed."

So you know every gene in every person in that population, including the unexpressed ones that didn't make it into their genetic makeup in the final product? That seems highly unlikely.

And given that nothing has been named, there could be other factors present. Maybe the gene that gives resistance to the disease also makes them vulnerable to something else, or attract certain insects and bacteria more frequently.

" I'm also not sure what you think whether or not a population drinks milk has anything to do with the gene's dominance."

Well I figured the more a population drank milk, the less likely a member of the population would be to lactose intolerant. You know, like how adaptation works. Like how in warm regions, dogs lost long fur genes and in cold regions they lost short fur genes. And in a population where milk would be one of the main sources of nourishment, it would only make sense.

I apologies for any confusion that arises/has already happened based on the timing of our comments. Anyway...

"That would indicate that adaptation has nothing to do with evolution, which is what I have been stating."

No, the fact that the respective rates of adaptation and speciation do not correlate directly simply means that more adaptation does not necessarily equal more speciation. Speciation and its rate are dependent on other factors as well.

"If given the time of 200,000 years that number would be higher, possibly up to 1% diversity or higher than that, resulting in either the potential subspecies I keep mentioning or far more ethnic races."

Again, this is not necessarily the case given my last statement. Additionally, the number of "races" is not exactly relevant, considering the fact that races are arbitrarily categorized groups based on superficial sets of phenotypical variation.

"And yet Y Chromosome Adam is how they got the statistic that all human DNA is 0.5% divergent, therefore he did in fact exist even if the Bible ended up not being true."

I know Y Chromosome Adam existed, he just cannot genetically be our most recent common ancestor.

"Even in modern day it is possible for a modern pair of animals to have every gene in their kinds' genome."

This is not the case; the very nature of allelic polymorphism makes this impossible. If all modern members of a species are descended from a single mating pair, this implies that the original had far larger chromosomes than they do today.

"There is no need to take into account aquatic animals as they could both survive and thrive in the Flood."

Actually, the change in salinity and pH from a global flood would have killed almost all aquatic species, with the exception of most marine mammals and reptiles.

"Speciation and its rate are dependent on other factors as well."

Yes, such as the differing regions they populate. Which would cause slightly differing adaptation, and given the time you propose, extremely different genetics, resulting in a subspecies if nothing else.

"Additionally, the number of "races" is not exactly relevant, considering the fact that races are arbitrarily categorized groups based on superficial sets of phenotypical variation."

Well yes, I know, but certain regions had the ethnic races they did for a reason. White people were able to survive better in the far north, and black people in the denser jungle areas, and other races in their respective areas for their own various reasons. The benefits and potential drawbacks of these genes have been nullified by the presence of heating, cooling, and other technology being so abundant in so many areas of the world however.

"I know Y Chromosome Adam existed, he just cannot genetically be our most recent common ancestor."

And why is that?

Whoops, posted sooner than I meant to again.

" If all modern members of a species are descended from a single mating pair, this implies that the original had far larger chromosomes than they do today."

Which is exactly what I've been saying. Previous generations had bigger genepools because they had bigger chromosomes.

"Actually, the change in salinity and pH from a global flood would have killed almost all aquatic species, with the exception of most marine mammals and reptiles."

Well they still wouldn't have gotten it as bad as those on the Arc as far as near extinction goes. Remember, most aquatic species live in the ocean and therefore need salt water to survive, while species trapped in fresher water adapted to breath less salty water until they're unable to take in talk to begin with.

I'm interested to know what your source is for the distinction between evolution and adaptation. The dichotomy presented in the paragraph is highly atypical. The idea of limiting the definition of evolution specifically to gene variance without including the process of natural selection goes against its definition within the theory of evolution itself.

"Assuming of course these genes didn't already exist in the gene pool from the start of humanity... ...They were dominant or recessive based on environments over the centuries thanks to adaptation."

We know for a fact these are mutations. We can even pinpoint the exact alleles that mutated. Additionally, if all genes that can currently be found in the human genome existed in the "original" human population, then the distribution of these genes would be demonstrably different today from how they actually are, especially when it comes to incomplete-dominant and co-dominant genes, and genes which provide no evolutionary advantage.

"I'm interested to know what your source is for the distinction between evolution and adaptation."

The original source is a series of educational videos featuring Ken Ham. I had a full class based around them.

"The idea of limiting the definition of evolution specifically to gene variance without including the process of natural selection goes against its definition within the theory of evolution itself. "

And how exactly did it deviate from the definition of evolution? As far as I know, the definition of evolution is new genes forming from nothing to aid a creature's offspring survive more easily than it did, which supposedly creates new species given enough time.

"We know for a fact these are mutations. We can even pinpoint the exact alleles that mutated."

For a fact? Example? Evidence?

"Additionally, if all genes that can currently be found in the human genome existed in the "original" human population, then the distribution of these genes would be demonstrably different today from how they actually are, especially when it comes to incomplete-dominant and co-dominant genes, and genes which provide no evolutionary advantage."

Not necessarily. You assume by that statement I mean humans always had all the genes we currently had, but in the beginning, we had a much bigger gene pool, and like every other living thing, that gene pool shrank as unneeded genes were lost.

As I have said, adaptation is genetic data already in a gene pool used to modify species in a local area. Evolution is genetic data being added to the pool from a source that doesn't exist. Mutations are genetic glitches.

"I admit defeat. It is the only logical thing to do at this point. Sorry for wasting your time back then."

There is no need to apologize my dude. While your apology is of course a much appreciated gesture of honesty and integrity, I can hardly see any endeavor which has led someone else to pursue scientific study or understanding as a waste of my time.

Live long and prosper my friend :)

Concerning human morality:

"For social animals, such behaviors are instinct. Humans have to be taught right from wrong."

Taught sociological behaviors are not unique to humans. Apes and Dolphins, for example, interact through learned or taught behaviors as well, which results in unique modes of social behaviors appearing on the level of individual groups. Humans do this far more than any other species due to their superior intelligence and communicative abilities, but this by no means suggests that morality within human sociology could not have evolved. Indeed, many of the most prominent and universal moral attributes in human society are just as instinctive in humans as they are in other animals, such as prioritization of kin over others and the impulse to intervene on their behalf, reciprocation of violence or violation, assertion of authority or subservience to it, compromising one's own inclinations on behalf of another by compulsion of guilt or sympathy, rejecting those that violate or deviate from societal norms in favor of those who conform to them, some extent of pair bonding or sexual fidelity (at least when children are involved), generally refraining from incest with immediate family, especially with one's parents, and reverence for the deceased.

"If right and wrong truly did 'evolve' in us, we would be generally good from the start..."

Again, the base morality shared by virtually all human populations are more instinctive than they are taught. And whether something counts as "good" or "bad" beyond that is completely subjective, and varies from culture to culture. There is no absolute "Right" or "wrong" outside of cultural or religious orthopraxy, unless of course you choose to include those morals which are essentially intrinsic to human social interaction.

"There is no absolute "Right" or "wrong" outside of cultural or religious orthopraxy"

So basically, there is no logical reason for any rules to exist, at least for atheists. That'll be good to know if you manage to debunk all my arguments. I do run primarily on logic.

"Concerning human morality:"

This made it seem as though you were going to address the other argument as well, yet you never did. Was there suppose to be another comment covering it that just didn't go through or are you still working on this one?

"Even so, it doesn't change the fact that if a planet weren't near identical to earth in almost every aspect it would not be able to support life"

To reiterate, Zackarisson's work accounts for a large number of factors that are completely irrelevant to whether or not a planet can support life. I'm also not sure where you're getting the "1 in 700 quintillion" statistic from.

"Such as potassium argon radiodating? A 10 year old stone was put through the process, and was dated to be a million years old."

I'm not sure what study you are referring to; but many similar "studies" by people trying to disprove K-Ar dating have been have been done before, and every time it has been done with improper techniques and methodology. You cannot, for example, use K-Ar dating to date a single stone. Additionally, K-Ar dating is usually used to date much older objects, and getting a reliable exact date for something as young as 10 years is essentially impossible. Every single example creationists try to use as evidence against K-Ar dating is either based on incorrect use of the dating method, misrepresenting data from other studies, or experiments done when the method was first being discovered and tested and before we knew how it worked.

"Yes, such as the differing regions they populate…"

No, I mean factors that function completely independently of adaptation. Given the population genetics of humans, we have no reason to expect that there would be more subspecies today.

"And why is that? (concerning the Y chromosome)"

Because patrilineal Y-haplogroup variance distribution is substantially greater than that of many other haplogroups common to all humans.

"Previous generations had bigger genepools because they had bigger chromosomes."

This would imply an extremely rapid alinear rate of genetic loss that cannot be accounted for by adaptation or any other aspect of population genetics. Not to mention it would make sexual reproduction and meiotic division impossible.

"species trapped in fresher water adapted to breath less salty water until they're unable to take in talk to begin with."

There is not a single genetic or physiological aspect of freshwater fish that implies this could even possibly be what happened.

"To reiterate, Zackarisson's work accounts for a large number of factors that are completely irrelevant to whether or not a planet can support life."

While that is true, it is also true that it includes a number of factors relevant to whether or not a planet can support life.

"I'm also not sure where you're getting the "1 in 700 quintillion" statistic from."

It is the statistic of the odds of a planet such as Earth forming in Zackarisson's model. I realize it is not geared toward whether or not life could form, but life could not form on a planet unlike Earth, and therefore his model is relevant.

"but many similar "studies" by people trying to disprove K-Ar dating have been have been done before, and every time it has been done with improper techniques and methodology."

And at the same time, if those techniques are the only ways to get the proper ages of objects that old, how do you know it's accurate? Nobody was recording anything way back then, not if the secular worldview is correct. Things of similar age will come out similar in any test, but that doesn't mean the test is accurate, only consistent.
It is possible both sides of the debate are flawed in this particular point.

"Given the population genetics of humans, we have no reason to expect that there would be more subspecies today."

And yet logically, subspecies should've formed to better suit their environments, food supplies, and dealings with other local species, as that is what evolution would do: Tweak a species or part of it to better suit whatever needs it currently possess.

"Because patrilineal Y-haplogroup variance distribution is substantially greater than that of many other haplogroups common to all humans."

Forgive me I am misunderstanding something, but you are arguing Y Chromosomal Adam isn't the most recent common ancestor, despite the definition of Y Chromosomal Adam being that he was, and who he might've been isn't set in stone atheistically, as it is a name given to the most recent male common ancestor, not a specific entity.

"This would imply an extremely rapid alinear rate of genetic loss that cannot be accounted for by adaptation or any other aspect of population genetics. Not to mention it would make sexual reproduction and meiotic division impossible."

It's more gradual than you make it sound, and it slowed to a stop at some point as evidenced by the fact that chromosomes have several sizes today. 4.8 thousand years is a long time, plenty for this to occur.

"There is not a single genetic or physiological aspect of freshwater fish that implies this could even possibly be what happened."

It was speculation on my part, as that has no source. I don't know specifically what happened, all I know is that it did happen.

"Mutation doesn't occur often enough to be the sol cause, otherwise multiple human species, or at the very least subspecies, would still exist today."

Mutation certainly does occur often enough to be the sole cause, just not in the time frame of a few thousand years given the reproductive rate of humans. Additionally, myriad other species and subspecies of humans did in fact exist; all are now extinct.

It's also interesting that you have brought up the human mutation rate; because based on this mutation rate, the human genome's extreme diversity cannot possibly be descended from five ancestral genepools, (those of Noah, his wife, and their daughters-in-law,) a mere four thousand years ago. Indeed, if the entire human genome were descended from only five genepools several millennia ago, this inbreeding effect would be readily apparent in the human genome, which it certainly is not. This genetic mark of inbreeding would be even more apparent in animals that are more genetically diverse than humans, yet supposedly descended only from the genepools of a single breeding pair.

"why are there native tribes in Africa that... point to pictures of dinosaurs rather than known animals when asked about the monsters they encounter?"

In other words, you're arguing that dinosaurs are still out there somewhere in Africa. This specific "monster" you are referring to is called (among other things) the Mokele-Mbembe, and comes from the mythology of various Congo peoples of central Africa. You mention that some of them pointed to pictures of dinosaurs (specifically sauropods) when shown pictures of other animals to compare them to. Other groups, however, when asked about the Mokele-Mbembe, pointed to a picture of a rhinoceros (another animal not found in the area). Others even testified that the Mokele-Mbembe was not even a flesh-and-blood animal, but a spirit that can materialize and disappear at will. The descriptions of this creature are inconsistent and based primarily on the account of people who say they have never seen one personally. Additionally, the pictures of dinosaurs shown to these tribes were pictures of sauropods submerged up to the shoulder in water, leaving little more than the neck and tail visible. But besides all this, no evidence of the Mokele-Mbembe has ever been found by researchers, despite two hundred years of attempting to do so. The chances this giant reptile can maintain a sizable breeding population in secret is near impossible

"Mutation certainly does occur often enough to be the sole cause, just not in the time frame of a few thousand years given the reproductive rate of humans."

I wasn't talking about in the few thousand years I believe. I do realize I should have pointed this out now, but I was referring to the millions of years you believe in.

"Additionally, myriad other species and subspecies of humans did in fact exist; all are now extinct."

I know full well about the neanderthals and hobbits and a few other species whose names escape me at the moment, but those weren't subspecies, those "branched off from the same species humans branched off from". If the human species were the 200,000 years old you believe it is, it certainly would've devolved subspecies based on regions by now, especially if mutations were as benifical and common as you claim.

"It's also interesting that you have brought up the human mutation rate; etc"

You underestimate the size of the genepools they had. Like I've been saying, the genepools shrinkswith each generation as natural selection dispatches harmful genes. 4000 years ago, Noah and his family could have had big enough genepools for the entire modern human genome. And even if they didn't, it wouldn't be GOD's 1st miracle.

"This specific "monster" you are referring to is called (among other things) the Mokele-Mbembe, and comes from the mythology of various Congo peoples of central Africa."

Specific? I am not referring to one monster, but multiple monsters from multiple native tribes all throughout the still wild parts of Africa. The Mokele-Mbembe is only one of them. There is also the Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu, described as a large herbivore with large jagged plates on its back, the Nguma-Monene, described as a huge lizard with a ridge on it's back, a low stance, and can be measured up to 30 ft long, the Emela-Ntouka, the 'killer of elephants' as pygmy Africans call it, is described as a stout animal about the size of a rhino with a long tail and a single horn (and no single horned rhinos exist in the region of Africa Emela is from), and the Ngoubou, described as a miniature rhino with several horns a bony frill, and temper that makes it charge anything that gets to close, including the much larger African elephant.

"The chances this giant reptile can maintain a sizable breeding population in secret is near impossible"

While it is true that many scientists and explorers have explored the majority of Africa, they haven't explored all of it due

to a lack of the resources nessicary to get to the deepest parts of the denser jungles as well as the civil wars and political upheaval that are constants in the areas limiting safety even more.

"And who or what selects those traits? What's stopping the natural process from allowing harmful things to develop in the genome? And what is making the higher survival rate genes appear more frequently?"

What selects certain traits is statistical probability; if an organism has a gene that harms it enough to reduce its chances of reproduction, then the probability of that genes being passed on to the next generation is also reduced, because the organism's ability to pass the gene on to future generations has been compromised by its affects. But if a gene provides a survival or reproductive advantage, then the chances of that gene being passed on are increased, because the organism affected by it is better able to survive and reproduce. In this way, a gene that retards the ability to survive and reproduce will become less common within a population with each successive generation, whereas a gene that enhances the ability to survive and reproduce will become more common. This, in its simplest possible terms, is what natural selection is.

"So they lost the gene sometime before they were exposed to the disease that gene helps resist."

Adaptation does not cause a population to lose a gene which does not reduce the chances of reproduction; a gene that is harmless, no matter how useless, will not be lost to natural selection.

"A GOD given gene we've had since the creation of man."

Then how come only 30% of the human population has it, despite the fact that it is a heavily dominant gene? Again, a gene that imposes no disadvantage cannot be lost through adaptation.

"What selects certain traits is statistical probability (and what followed)"

You only answered half the question. So bad genes are filtered out by individuals not being able to reproduce. But you didn't answer what makes the higher survival rate genes appear more frequently, so I'll ask again: What force makes higher survival rate genes more frequent to appear than already existing genes that aren't harmful? As you said, adoption doesn't filter unneeded genes, only harmful ones. So what exactly does?

"Adaptation does not cause a population to lose a gene which does not reduce the chances of reproduction; a gene that is harmless, no matter how useless, will not be lost to natural selection."

So it became a highly recessive gene.

"Then how come only 30% of the human population has it, despite the fact that it is a heavily dominant gene? Again, a gene that imposes no disadvantage cannot be lost through adaptation."

The dominant gene doesn't always get picked. Maybe it remained dominant in parts of the world where milk is regularly drunken but somewhat recessive in places where it is not consumed often.

Yes, here it is. I don't know why it didn't go through when I posted it. While I'm here, I'll response to your last statement:

"So basically, there is no logical reason for any rules to exist, at least for atheists."

There can certainly be logical reasons for rules to exist in practical terms, but the concepts of "good" vs "bad" are subjective and defined by opinion. Many kinds of mores vary drastically between cultures, and justification for most of them are determined entirely by emotion and instinct rather than logic. There can be logical rules that are functional, but the concept of what is or is not ethical is categorized by opinion, instinct, and emotion. Now, on to the post that failed to go through earlier:

Concerning evolutionary theory:

"people mistake evolution and adaptation are one and the same where as they work differently."

This is a false dichotomy with no scientific basis. Adaptation is the driving force behind the evolutionary process, and the two terms are of the same level of organization lexicographically and describe the same essential processes, hence why they are frequently used synonymously in science. The closest term to what you have characterized as "adaptation" is a process called "exaptation," which still is a subset of evolutionary adaptation.

"It (the mutation) is practically always harmful to the creature, and if it isn't harmful, it doesn't impact the creature at all."

This is a false assumption; most phenotypical changes have little to no effect, though some are harmful, but mutations that provide advantages can be observed. For example, there is the mutation that causes sickle-celled anemia, which can be lethal when it is the only dominant expressed phenotype, but provides those who are only carriers of the gene with a natural resistance to malaria. Other examples of beneficial mutations in humans include ectomorphic or endomorphic mutations, which better allow people to regulate body temperature in different environments, mutations concerning the production of melanin, which provide different advantages depending on the sun exposure in a particular habitat.

"the concept of what is or is not ethical is categorized by opinion, instinct, and emotion."

And that is where controversy rolls in. Opinion, instinct, and emotion are not the best things to base rules around. But that has nothing to do with this debate.

"(In response to claiming evolution and adaptation are separate) This is a false dichotomy with no scientific basis"

False? I'll just paste this statement from a secular source and let you see for yourself:
"Generally, evolution refers to change, and in particular in our gene-centered age, change due to changes in genes. Mutation changes DNA sequence, and if that change is transmitted to the next generation, the population’s gene pool, its set of genotype variants, has changed—it has ‘evolved’. Adaptation generally refers to change that leads organisms to be suited to their local circumstances in some way, when that change is due to changes in the mix of genetic variants in a species that is there. It is genetic change that alters the resulting organism in ways that are different and more successful in the environment than the genotypes (that is, the organisms with the genotypes) that had been there. The usual image is that of natural selection screening out the less successful genotypes, with the result that the ones that persist increase in their frequency in the population. Gene pools can evolve by chance or other reasons that don’t have to do with adaptation. Many, however, tend to use the two terms as synonyms. That’s a bit careless, and should be avoided."

"For example, there is the mutation that causes sickle-celled anemia, which can be lethal when it is the only dominant expressed phenotype, but provides those who are only carriers of the gene with a natural resistance to malaria. Other examples of beneficial mutations in humans include ectomorphic or endomorphic mutations, which better allow people to regulate body temperature in different environments, mutations concerning the production of melanin, which provide different advantages depending on the sun exposure in a particular habitat."

Assuming of course these genes didn't already exist in the genepool from the start of humanity. I know most of my points have been based on assumptions the people I got my research from made, but assuming genes weren't there to begin with is just as much an assumption. They were dominant or ressecive based on eviorments over the centuries thanks to adaptation.

"I believe you may be looking for evidence in the wrong era, atheists have only ever had shaky foundations for Egytion chronology."

As a matter of fact, our understanding of Egyptian chronology is actually quite detailed and well documented. And what does being an "atheist" have to do with anything? There are even many Rabbinic scholars today who believe the Exodus never happened. But anyway, the Bible says that the Exodus happened 480 years before the construction of Solomon's Temple, which would put it at around 1450 BC. But according to the link you listed, the Bible is off by about a thousand years, and even from a historical perspective, the third century BC date listed is even more chronologically problematic than the usual second century BC one. Furthermore, the article doesn't actually provide any evidence; it simply tries to find a general circumstance in Egyptian history that is superficially close enough to the Exodus narrative that it doesn't look completely baseless. This is simply listing of things that don't explicitly contradict Exodus, whilst ignoring all facts that do, which is a far cry from providing evidence directly indicative of or explicitly concordant with the claim at hand. And the article even falls short in substantiating its own selective yet barely relevant claims; it attempts to synch the Exodus with Egypt's First Intermediate Period by erroneously and vaguely trying to compare the time's low inundation levels and bureaucratic dysfunction with the Ten Plagues of Egypt. This, however, still does nothing to address the fact that there is absolutely no archeological evidence that the one to two thirds of the entire Egyptian population left Egypt and immigrated Israel, not to mention that all ethnographical evidence points against it. There aren't any references to such an event in any Egyptian record either, from the First Intermediate Period or otherwise. Also, it's worth mentioning that a further anachronism in the Exodus narrative is the mention of camels, which would not be introduced to Egypt until many centuries after even the latest proposed dates for the Exodus.

"What is contradictory about that?" + "the Bible labels Eve the first woman."

Genesis says that he created beasts and plants before humans, then created man and woman. It then goes on to say that after God had created all this, that Adam was alone, and that God subsequently created all the plants and animals that Genesis 1 claims God had created before man. Only after Adam rejects these companions, does God create a woman. The specific disparity concerning the chronology of woman's creation is why many Jews believe that Adam had another wife before Eve, named Lilith, who is a character referenced by other Hebrew texts written around the time the OT was.

"Could me give me some so I know what I'm working with?"

When the Book of Jasher was written, when the first priests were appointed, who made a covenant with Abimelech and Phichol, where Jacob's name was changed, the nationality of Moses' and Esau's wives, who was Moses' father-in-law, who Bashemath's and Zerubbabel's fathers were, whether Luz and Beth-el are different places, how many sons Eliphaz, Michal, and Jesse had, who proposed the appointment of the Judges, how many Israelites fled Egypt, where Aaron died and where the people went after his death, when and to what extent David annihilates the Amalekites, when Baasha died, how Saul died, when Saul met David, how much David paid for his property, whether it was God or Satan who told Davit to take the census, how large the census count was, how old Ahazia was when he became king and where he died, how Sisera was killed, who captured Debir, when Baasha died, whether or not Jehu's massacre was condoned by God, whether Ahaz was conquered, at what age Jehoichin became king, how long he reigned, and who succeeded him, how long Omri reigned, and whether or not there were multiple languages before the Tower of Babble are all questions to which the Bible gives different conflicting answers.

Also, I forgot to mention:

"Well, since all these genes came from three pairs of people, who combined have the entire modern human genome but the indivial pairs would not, and through the generations, as different people groups separated from eachother, certain groups gathered their own genepools, none of which have every gene."

This still wouldn't explain codominant or incomplete-dominant beneficial mutations that exist only among one population while being completely absent from all other populations that share a most recent common ancestral population with them. Such differentiation cannot result from an ancestral lineage tracing back to the diaspora of any original basal gene pool. Mathematically, they must be descended from a gene pool that lacked the gene entirely.

"This still wouldn't explain codominant or incomplete-dominant beneficial mutations that exist only among one population while being completely absent from all other populations that share a most recent common ancestral population with them. Such differentiation cannot result from an ancestral lineage tracing back to the diaspora of any original basal gene pool. Mathematically, they must be descended from a gene pool that lacked the gene entirely."

I have found in my research that I was incorrect about mutations never being benifical, just that it is a very rare accurance. So you win in this particular area.

"That is purely speculation on behalf of Christians who don't have full faith in GOD and prefer to find a compromise between CHRIST and evolution, which is altering the Bible, which has been stated multiple times to be a sin."

As far as content distortions are concerned, what they are speculating is reasonable, considering the fact that the stories in the OT are oral traditions pertaining to events thousands of years prior to their day -- not that proposing why the OT authors were wrong requires as much speculation as proposing how they could possibly be correct. As for faith; faith is the deliberate suspension of critical judgement in favor of a belief. It is the very willingness to assert something with absolute conviction in lieu of, or even in spite of, evidence. In other words, it's a glorified bias, the belief that something must be believed no matter what because someone says that you have to. Having faith in God in the sense of trusting Him (because you know he exists) is one thing, but asserting on faith that something is factual is literally make-believe; there is no need to have faith that something is true if you already have evidence that it is, and indeed, the only time faith is required for belief is when there is no evidence to back the purported claim. But that aside, when it comes to the Christians majority (at least, in countries with a formal education system) who don't believe that Genesis is literal, their faith is in God, not in a heterogeneous compilation of Iron-Age tribal mythology. To say that these Christians don't have "full faith" in God is to blame them for worshiping God Himself rather than a book; a book that they recognize as being unequivocally proven false by science. Indeed, many Christians would go so far as to say that the OT is proven false by the NT whenever the former contradicts the latter. And what you say about "altering" the Bible is a somewhat enigmatic claim, considering the fact that the Bible as it exists today is the result of countless iterations of alteration, reinterpretation, translation, and editing, which to this day does not have an exact and universally recognized composition. But even if by "altering" the Bible you mean not ideologically adhering to it in absolutist terms, it's not as if the fact that a book demands you believe it by threatening you with eternal damnation serves as a credential for its accuracy.

For whatever reason, whether of not a comment goes through seems to be random. After countless attempts, I've only been able to submit three of the five or six I have to post.

Don't worry, I will reply to all these comments soon, I am just taking my time with research more than I had before due to the larger amount of information we are now debating at once.

"Adaptation uses already existing genes to adjust creatures to the local area. Of course people exposed to localized diseases will have a stronger resistance."

I think you missed my point; in the human population there will be two different populations (A and B) and two different diseases (X and Y), such that population A is exposed to disease X, and population B is exposed to disease Y. Population A has a gene that provides resistance against both diseases X and Y; yet this gene is not found in population B, which would benefit from it through resistance against disease Y but still lacks it entirely. If this gene were part of an original human genome, adaptation would have selected for it in both populations due to the advantages it would provide to both of them. But it isn't; the gene is a mutation unique to one of the separate populations.

"Tell me, what is the evolutionary advantage to that (the sickle cell trait)?"

It provides a natural resistance to malaria, which itself is demonstrably more likely to kill you than the sickle cell trait itself.

"I didn't say genetic mutation doesn't happen, I just said it is never benifical."

Why do you assume that? Also, for future reference, I'm going to have to ask you how long ago you believe Noah's Flood took place.

As for the rest of my points made in the last comment, none of them are relevant if you do acknowledged that the human genome as it exists today has been shaped by mutation.

"I think you missed my point (and all that followed)"

Something like that would be present in both somewhere in the genepool unless Population B was a subspecies. Even if it were more fleshed out in one than the other, the locally benifical gene, in this case, resistance to disease Y, would surface in Population B if it survived long enough.

"It provides a natural resistance to malaria, which itself is demonstrably more likely to kill you than the sickle cell trait itself."

A mutation which swaps death by micro parasites to death by blood clot. And while Malaria may be more likely, sickle cell does kill, meaning it isn't a benifical enough mutation to be considered an evolution.

"Why do you assume that? (That being mutation is never benificial)"

Why do you assume benifical ones happen? Can you give me an example of a purely positive mutation with no negative side effects?

"for future reference, I'm going to have to ask you how long ago you believe Noah's Flood took place."

Like most Christians, I believe the Earth is 6000, and since it was already heavily populated and secular when the Flood happened, my best estimate is around 4000 years ago.

"As for the rest of my points made in the last comment, none of them are relevant if you do acknowledged that the human genome as it exists today has been shaped by mutation."

A program can be shaped by glitches, so yes. They did have a hand in it.

"I see your point."

Then why is it that you assert the OT must be the inerrant truth, and all other religious groups are completely wrong, when most others are similarly derived and no more self-contradictory than the OT?

"Why doesn't that result in a subspecies more suited for those particular environments?"

Again, phenotypical adaptation and speciation are not directly correlated.

"all human DNA is nearly identical, something that wouldn't have occurred had we been around for 200,000 years... ...all human DNA is virtually identical, consistent with thousands, not millions of years."

This is false. The diversity within the human genome happens to be exactly what would be expected if we had been around for about 200,000 years. While the genetic variation between members of our species may seem small (never more than about 0.5%), it is actually responsible for an enormous range of diversity. For perspective, the genetic variation between humans and chimpanzees (which aren't even part of our genus) is about 2.5%.

"There should also be a single Y chromosome linage from Noah himself..."

If this were the case, then our "Y chromosome Adam" would also be our most recent common ancestor, which genetics has already shown is mathematically impossible.

Additionally, you have yet to address the genetic distribution of other animals.

"Again, phenotypical adaptation and speciation are not directly correlated."

That would indicate that adaptation has nothing to do with evolution, which is what I have been stating.

"The diversity within the human genome happens to be exactly what would be expected if we had been around for about 200,000 years. etc..."

Yes, yes, I am aware of that. However! If given the time of 200,000 years that number would be higher, possibly up to 1% diversity or higher than that, resulting in either the potential subspecies I keep mentioning or far more ethnic races.

"If this were the case, then our "Y chromosome Adam" would also be our most recent common ancestor, which genetics has already shown is mathematically impossible."

And yet Y Chromosome Adam is how they got the statistic that all human DNA is 0.5% divergent, therefore he did in fact exist even if the Bible ended up not being true.

"Additionally, you have yet to address the genetic distribution of other animals."

Well for starters, there is no need to take into account aquatic animals as they could both survive and thrive in the Flood.
As for the rest of the numerous species that are land based, each kind had much more genetic potential than you give them credit for. Even in modern day it is possible for a modern pair of animals to have every gene in their kinds' genome.

I apologize for the random order my comments are coming through in.

"I would like for you to specify what cities and how they were said to be destroyed"

The primary example is the city Jericho, which the Book of Joshua says was destroyed during the Israelite conquest of Canaan. Jericho was an insignificant and unfortified town at the time the bible indicates the battle took place, and saw no destruction at the time the article you linked proposes. Other geographic references point to the time of the Biblical authors, such as the cities of Kadesh, Ezion-Geber, Pithom, and Ramesses.

"The Bible does refer to the world as a circle at one point, and while this can be interpreted as a flat disk, it could also refer the orb the earth also is."

The idea of a two-dimensional circular plane is explicit. Some people try to interpret this to mean the horizon, particularly in the case of Job's account, though this requires a strained interpretation of the wording. This earth is describes as having an edge, upon which rests the dome of the sky, or firmament. How exactly the sky rests on the earth varies from passage to passage, but Psalms, Samuel, and Deuteronomy all indicate the same general idea of pillars, mountains, or "supports" holding it up. According to Genesis, this dome was made to constrain the waters above the earth from the waters below it, and contains "windows" through which the waters above can pass. The sun, moon, and stars are sealed in beneath this firmament, which according to Exodus, is made of transparent lapis-lazuli. Also, the primordial waters which the edges of the earth and the firmament restrain are not described as being a creation of God, but rather as the infinite, primordial force of chaos that has always existed, and which God parts and constrains in order to derive heavens and earth from the oceanic abyss of chaos. This model of creation is found in many other Middle-Eastern cosmogony narratives as well. Genesis exemplifies the idea that God divided the waters through spoken commands and speaking the firmament into being, whereas other Hebrew texts describe a process by which God tames the abyss by battling the forces of chaos and the sea monsters within, which is the creation narrative referenced in Psalms.

OK, this should be the last of my swarm of discombobulated comments :P

"what the Bible refers to as a kind, scientific classification refers to as family, some kinds being sizable enough for science to call them orders."

There is no such thing as a "kind." "kinds" are an arbitrary and fallacious way of classifying living organisms that creationists use to avoid using the actual phylogenetic taxa of organisms, which invariably point to evolution and the ancestral relatedness of all life. Your statement that "The way to know if multiple species are the same kind is by whether or not they can reproduce together" directly contradicts your claim that "kinds" are separate on the level of family or order. And when you say that "genuses and species were beginning to become distinct from one another," what you're describing is literally evolution, only at impossibly high speeds.
Additionally, arbitrarily varying what level of taxonomy constitutes a "kind" means that different "kinds" were diversifying into more life forms varying rates after the flood, meaning that different "kinds" were reproducing at randomly and inexplicably varying rates.

"HE instructed them where to go, creating the foodchains."

Because of the relative population density organization needed to create food chains, all the predatory animals would have starved to death waiting for all their prey to reproduce enough to sustain the food chain.

"from every corner of the world back when the entire landmass was simply Pangia."

There is no means by which the continents could have separated that quickly, and the structure of the earth's crust shows that they didn't.

I have come back after nearly two years to apologize. When this debate began I was unfairly biased and afraid of the implications of what being wrong on this subject would mean.

I've spent countless hours researching over the months and found the vast majority of my sources to be unreliable.

I admit defeat. It is the only logical thing to do at this point. Sorry for wasting your time back then.

"not necessarily ... in the beginning, we had a much bigger gene pool, and like every other living thing, that gene pool shrank as unneeded genes were lost."

Actually, the distribution of genetic factors would be significantly different than they are today. Adaptation only selects against harmful genes, but not harmless genes that are unneeded. All such genes, especially codominant and dominant-negative ones, would be distributed homogeneously among the human population, which many of them are not. There are other genes, for example, that provide resistance to a number of different localized diseases but appear only in one set of populations that live with one of them. If they were part of an "original human genome," they would be selected for in all populations exposed to any one of these diseases, but instead, they are unique to only certain populations who are only exposed to one of these diseases. Certain genetic disorders would also be more universal, as well as things like the distribution of blood types. Not to mention, that some genes have more alleles than can be be contained on to chromosome pairs, which means that the entire human genome couldn't be traced back to two individuals without genetic mutation.

As for exact genes we know for a fact are mutations, take the sickle cell trait as an example. It is caused by a single-nucleotide polymorphic misstranscription mutation on the hemoglobin beta gene; it's origin process can be shown through restriction endonuclease analysis. The sickle cell trait also exists in several completely independent forms in various different populations with varying effects on the carrier's health, something which cannot result from adaptive genetic reduction.

"As far as I know, the definition of evolution is new genes forming from nothing to aid a creature's offspring survive more easily than it did, which supposedly creates new species given enough time."

Evolution is defined as the process of biological speciation through change in the set of heritable characteristics by means of natural selection and mutation. Also, mutations are not "new genes being created out of nothing," they are transmutations of preexisting genetic code.

"All such genes, especially codominant and dominant-negative ones, would be distributed homogeneously among the human population, which many of them are not. There are other genes, for example, that provide resistance to a number of different localized diseases but appear only in one set of populations that live with one of them. If they were part of an "original human genome," they would be selected for in all populations exposed to any one of these diseases, but instead, they are unique to only certain populations who are only exposed to one of these diseases."

Adaptation uses already existing genes to adjust creatures to the local area. Of course people exposed to localized diseases will have a stronger resistance.

"Certain genetic disorders would also be more universal, as well as things like the distribution of blood types."

Except for the fact that some blood types are more recessive than others. And genetic disorders are also recessive, at least most are anyway.

"Not to mention, that some genes have more alleles than can be be contained on to chromosome pairs, which means that the entire human genome couldn't be traced back to two individuals without genetic mutation."

A. I didn't say genetic mutation doesn't happen, I just said it is never benifical. B. Adam and Eve would be difficult to pinpoint. You know why? The Flood wiped out 99.999999 of their descendants at the time with only Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives surviving. Meaning what should be happening is attempting to trace back to the main three genetic early points, than seeing their common genetic point. Seeing beyond Noah and his wife would be nigh impossible, and just getting to them would take years of collecting genes from everyone on earth.

"As for exact genes we know for a fact are mutations, take the sickle cell trait as an example."

Sickle cell, the genetic disease that changes red blood cells from the flexible disks they're suppose to be into more sickle shaped cells that aren't flexible, leading to several blood clot problems, among other things. Tell me, what is the evolutionary advantage to that?

"mutations are not "new genes being created out of nothing," they are transmutations of preexisting genetic code."

Ok. So the new genes aren't made from nothing, they're made by nothing from already existing genes. Your point?

"So you know every gene in every person in that population, including the unexpressed ones that didn't make it into their genetic makeup in the final product? That seems highly unlikely."

First of all, the fact that a gene is unexpressed does not mean it "didn't make it into their genetic makeup in the final product." I myself, for example, have a blue-eyed gene yet still have brown eyes. But anyway, in the context of population sequencing, you don't need to sequence every genome in a population in order to determine whether a certain gene or allele thereof is present in its genepool; a sample group will suffice. The math of how this works is a huge pain in the neck to work, and even harder to explain (especially to someone without a background in population genetics,) so I wont go into the math unless you are particularly inclined to/proficient in collage calculus. But to put it in simplest possible terms, if you take a certain sample size within a population, and sequence each member's DNA, you can determine how closely related they are to each other, and based on that information, determine whether or not any given gene which is absent in all sampled genomes will appear in other members of the population.

"And given that nothing has been named, there could be other factors present..."

An example of such a gene which has no negative drawbacks (as some others do) would be the CCR5 gene.

"Well I figured the more a population drank milk... (and that which followed)"

Whether an allele happens to dominant or recessive is not a product of adaptation.

"You explained how the change would happen, not the force that prompts the change to happen."

I'm afraid I'm not sure what exactly it is that you are trying to say. The reason why advantageous genes increase in frequency within a population is that they are more likely to be passed on to future generations by virtue of the survival/reproductive advantage they provide to their carrier. What causes an advantageous gene to be passed on? Well, that's just what sexual reproduction does.

"I'm afraid I'm not sure what exactly it is that you are trying to say. The reason why advantageous genes increase in frequency within a population is that they are more likely to be passed on to future generations by virtue of the survival/reproductive advantage they provide to their carrier. What causes an advantageous gene to be passed on? Well, that's just what sexual reproduction does."

What I am asking is: What force causes so much change. The dinosaurs survived just fine until they started dyeing out, and I hardly see how birds have higher survival rates than they did. Mutation doesn't occur often enough to be the sol cause, otherwise multiple human species, or at the very least subspecies, would still exist today.

Speaking of dinosaurs, according to evolution, they all either died out when an asteroid impacted the planet, or evolved into birds. If that's the case, why are there native tribes in Africa that, who don't know about any animal not located in their local area, point to pictures of dinosaurs rather than known animals when asked about the monsters they encounter? They certainly wouldn't be hoaxing as they wouldn't know what dinosaurs are.

"Whether an allele happens to dominant or recessive is not a product of adaptation."

So if they needed gene was to recessive to make a differance, adaptation couldn't alter that is what you're saying.

"There is no true evolutionary way it could've come into existence as such a thing would require group evolution, where as according to evolutionary science, only genes that benefit the individual creature will be passed on."

I'm not sure where you got this idea from. "Group evolution" is an important part evolutionary theory, and is called "group selection." It addresses the evolution of social animals and their communal behaviors. Being part of a congruent and cooperative social group gives any individual within it a distinct advantage when it comes to survival. And among such animals, the most socially functional and cooperative groups are more likely to survive, and hence its members are more likely to pass on their genes. This is how many social traits among animals evolve, such as having a hierarchy controlled by whichever mating pair is best able to assert its dominance and only allowing the dominant pair to breed, thus producing only stronger offspring and not wasting resources on weaker individuals. Such behaviors concerning cohesion of social groups and other aspects of group selection are the likely origin of "morality" as humans define it. Indeed, social compulsions such as not transgressing hierarchy, refraining from killing individuals within the same group, maintaining sexual fidelity, avoiding unnecessary harm or alienation of others, punishing those that violate group trust or hierarchy, and showing reverence for the dead, are all characteristics within human sociology that have also evolved and been observed in many other animal species. In the case of Humans, there are additional factors that enhance the process of social development, most notably language and a higher form of intelligence or consciousness, which complicate the process of social evolution and allow the various elements of human sociology to build upon one another through human social interaction. Human society has also resulted in another (likely) unique trait among animals: religion. The earliest forms or religion were most likely not organized religions like we have today, but rather a more general form of animism. Such is theorized to be the result of human superstition, curiosity, and need for explanation, which is then reinforced by social interaction and communication, and ritualized.

Here's the thing: For social animals, such behaviors are instinct. Humans have to be taught right from wrong. If right and wrong truly did 'evolve' in us, we would be generally good from the start, but our parents and other adults need to teach us how to be good in order for us to function in society. And even then, sometimes they fail as evidenced by the existence of crime. And look at children who remain undisciplined throughout their childhood. They certainly seem to be lacking any stinctive knowledge of right and wrong as they believe they are always right and everyone else is wrong.

And speaking of evolution, I can't help but note that people mistake evolution and adaptation are one and the same where as they work differently. Think of the genepool as a collection of data. In adaptation, data already in the genepool is used to adapt the offspring to the environment where as evolution takes data that is not existing in the genepool and somehow using that to modify the creature's offspring for the better. And where does that extra data come from exactly? Mutation? That never works out, at least it never has in an observable way. It is practically always harmful to the creature, and if it isn't harmful, it doesn't impact the creature at all. Furthermore, the only observed mutations, I know of at least, are creatures from the sights of nuclear disasters such Chernobyl.

My computer is giving me serious grief when it comes to imgflip comments, I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

That's fine. After I took nearly a week to reply, I think you get a pass. And even if life hadn't gotten so hectic that week, you'd still get a pass.

It's not like our planet is the only one out there; in fact, there is likely at least one-hundred quintillion of them in the observable universe. So even if the chances of there being a planet capable of supporting life in our universe are as infinitesimally small as one in one-hundred quintillion, there could still easily be one capable of supporting life. We, of course, must then exist by definition on the one planet capable of supporting life. So given the odds, (which are likely higher than my extreme hypothetical example) the existence of a planet that supports life is not only possible, but likely, and the fact that we happen to exist on a planet that has the unlikely circumstances of life-supporting conditions is far from a coincidence; in fact, it's a guarantee.

Ok, you have me on that. It still seems like an incredibly long shot to even knowing all that is true. But let me ask you this: If there is no god and we evolved over millions of years, where did the concept of right and wrong originate? Society? Well where did society get it? The 1st religions? Well while those provided people with explanations and beliefs for the unexplainable without science, where did they get their religious morals and laws? There is no true evolutionary way it could've come into existence as such a thing would require group evolution, where as according to evolutionary science, only genes that benefit the individual creature will be passed on.

"Why isn't there a human subspecies that evolved... ...aren't there better ways we could've 'evolved'?"

Evolution doesn't result in perfect organisms; it functions more in terms of necessity than optimal ability. A trait that solves only a marginal problem will not become eminent to the point of speciation. Additionally, a drastic phenotypical change does not happen all at once; it must result from a logical 'path' of compounded phenotypical changes over time. Even random chance, to a slight extent, has something to do with it. There are many other factors as well, but I cannot go into all of them in any meaningful detail.

"Incorrect, those harmless genes are where the generic variation you continue to say couldn't have happened came from."

Then what about genes which appear only in certain populations, even though they offer no disadvantage while providing circumstantial or even universal benefits, such as lactase persistence, or genes that provide immunity to certain diseases?

"Even counting those mutant genes? 4000 years is a long time for a lot of people to be born, creating a lot of genetic variation."

4000-4800 years is still not remotely long enough, especially where animals descended from a single pair are concerned. If all of humanity's genetic traits came from so few people so recently, it would be easily provable through the genome. But relative genetic variation distribution rates suggest otherwise, as does the isotropy of these variations.

"Evolution doesn't result in perfect organisms; it functions more in terms of necessity than optimal ability."

I am not talking about creating perfect organisms (waterbears are as close to that we'll ever see). But I am talking about people overtime evolving due to the harsh environments they have lived in for generations. Why doesn't that result in a subspecies more suited for those particular environments?

"Then what about genes which appear only in certain populations, even though they offer no disadvantage while providing circumstantial or even universal benefits, such as lactase persistence, or genes that provide immunity to certain diseases?"

Well, since all these genes came from three pairs of people, who combined have the entire modern human genome but the indivial pairs would not, and through the generations, as different people groups separated from eachother, certain groups gathered their own genepools, none of which have every gene.

"4000-4800 years is still not remotely long enough, especially where animals descended from a single pair are concerned. If all of humanity's genetic traits came from so few people so recently, it would be easily provable through the genome"

Ah, but it is provable through the human genome. There should be signs of a bottleneck where humanity nearly went extinct. This is proved by the fact that all human DNA is nearly identical, something that wouldn't have occurred had we been around for 200,000 years. There should also be a single Y chromosome linage from Noah himself, as his sons inherited his Y chromosome. Indeed, worldwide there is a single Y chromosome linage. Evolutionists have named the source of this 'Y Chromosomal Adam'. There should also only three main mtDNA lines within the genome, as Noah and his wife are never said to have had additional children. These three lines are in fact there and have been called the 'M', 'N', and 'R' lines. These three lines should have all originated from a single female and therefore should be similar. As a matter of fact, M, N, and R have few differences, ergo, they must have originated in a single female before the bottleneck. Evolutionists have named her 'Mitochondria Eve'. And since the Flood happened somewhere between 4000 and 4800 years ago, there should be little genetic difference overall in all humans. As stated above, all human DNA is virtually identical, consistent with thousands, not millions of years.

"life could not form on a planet unlike Earth, and therefore his model is relevant."

But a planet wouldn't have to be identical to earth to support life. One of the factors in Zakrisson's experiment, for example, is specific size, which could vary by orders of magnitude beyond what the experiment considers "earthlike" and still support life. The experiment also considered ratios of heavy element composition, which excludes countless planets that could potentially support life from the experiment. Then there is the factor of age; you could have a planet nearly identical to earth in every guise pertaining to supporting life and it still wouldn’t count as "earthlike" according to the experiment, simply because it's older. Additionally, the timescale used stops at the present and does not account for future earthlike planets that could exist. It also limits the number of planets to that of the observable universe and excludes the unknown that stretches beyond.

"Things of similar age will come out similar in any test, but that doesn't mean the test is accurate, only consistent."

K-Ar dating is absolute, not relative. It gives an "exact" date which is within a certain margin of error that depends on the sample size.

"that is what evolution would do: Tweak a species or part of it to better suit whatever needs it currently possess."

And that IS what it does. Only, this doesn't result in further speciation within 50-150 thousand years (nor would it be expected to) given the overall versatility and reproductive rate of humans. There is not a single guise in which evolutionary theory would expect Homo sapiens sapiens to be more genetically varied than they already are.

"you are arguing Y Chromosomal Adam isn't the most recent common ancestor, despite the definition of Y Chromosomal Adam being that he was"

He is our most recent exclusively patrilineal common ancestor, not our most recent common ancestor overall.

"it slowed to a stop at some point as evidenced by the fact that chromosomes have several sizes today. 4.8 thousand years is a long time, plenty for this to occur."

If this process of gene deletion took place throughout the full 4800 years, it would be evident in the DNA of animals thousands of years ago, which it is not. The change would have to happen in a drastically shorter timescale in order to leave no evidence. And you still also have to account for the fact that animals with such a genetic makeup wouldn't be able to reproduce.

I am terribly sorry for such a late reply, circumstances prevented me from getting on the internet for any reason for nearly a week.

"But a planet wouldn't have to be identical to earth to support life. Etc..."

It doesn't have to be entirely identical, but it still has to resemble our Earth. Chemical composition, particularly the atmosphere. Without oxygen, both humans and animals would all die out, with the exceptions of a few microbes, and without carbon dioxide, all plants on earth would die. And the evolutionary start of life would require both of these gases in order for life to form. And then there are the concentrations of these gases. Venus is a perfect example of what earth would've been, with clouds of toxic gas that trap so much heat, it is hotter than Mercury, despite being much farther away.

"
K-Ar dating is absolute, not relative. It gives an "exact" date which is within a certain margin of error that depends on the sample size."

If it is so exact than it shouldn't have a problem coming at least a few years within the actual age of a stone as young as ten years old. And that point is mute anyway, as if anything young enough to have been recorded in human history, let alone objects for experimental purposes, are to young to for dating methods to work, you have no way of knowing the true accuracy of what you're dating.

"He is our most recent exclusively patrilineal common ancestor, not our most recent common ancestor overall."

Ah, I see what you mean, so that does not contradict my statements.

"If this process of gene deletion took place throughout the full 4800 years, it would be evident in the DNA of animals thousands of years ago, which it is not. The change would have to happen in a drastically shorter timescale in order to leave no evidence."

It is possible it did happen in a shorter timescale. 4800 years is the maximum amount of time it could've taken but it could've also happened at the rate you describe.

"And you still also have to account for the fact that animals with such a genetic makeup wouldn't be able to reproduce."

I tried doing research on this and came up with nothing, so could you please explain why such genetic makeup would prevent reproduction?

Also, as for your last statement:

"So if they (the?) needed gene was to recessive to make a differance, adaptation couldn't alter that is what you're saying."

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here either. After all, the very idea of a gene being "too recessive to make a difference" doesn't make sense in genetic science, so you'll have to elaborate for me to give a comprehensive answer. For now, all I can do is reiterate that adaptation has no effect on whether a gene happens to be dominant of recessive (or codominant, dominant-negative, etc..)

"I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here either."

What I'm asking is if a population had a highly recessive gene, but was then exposed to conditions that only large amounts of that gene could stop from destoryong the population, such as a foreign disease or a sudden change of envirment, adaptation couldn't make it a more dominant gene to create a higher survival rate?

"that happened once, and that was because I was to tired to think completely straight at the time."

Regardless, you would have to rely on them eventually anyway. For example, the story of Noah's Flood says that two of every species on earth were summoned from every corner of the earth, stuffed in a boat far too small to accommodate their needs, then disbanded back to their now desolate habitats to reestablish breeding populations and a functional food chain in an impossibly short time; and in the meantime, the amount of water on the earth's surface magically tripled then disappeared without a trace. None of this is possible without some significant bending of the natural order by supernatural means.

"What reason have we to believe it isn't literal?"

Because science has already shown that it can't both be literal and correct at the same time. The Old Testament says that the earth is a flat disk separated into four quadrants, floating atop a primordial ocean abyss with pillars to support it and a crystal dome resting atop of it to stop the primordial waters from flooding in from above. This dome has "flood gates" through which God lets in rain and the waters to flood the earth. The sun and moon are then both sealed within this dome, and revolve around the earth. This was the cosmological model the ancient Israelites believed in, and it was a model championed by Christianity with lethal force until it was proven that the earth was a sphere and revolves around the sun (though there are still creationists out there, including my own grandparents, who still think the sun goes around the earth.) There was also a time when people thought that dinosaur bones were "fake," and that their fossils were either forged by the devil or just distorted remains of extant animals. This is because the Old Testament says that all species with "the breath of life" were saved from Noah's Flood, and the concept of extinct species would imply otherwise. Again, religious ideologues did not yield on their literal interpretations until it was unequivocally proven that extinct fauna do in fact exist.

"None of this is possible without some significant bending of the natural order by supernatural means."

I typically answer these in the same order you put them but this requires immediant attention: Well what the heck do you think GOD is? HE doesn't do anything without a reason, which is why my original use of HIS power was a mistake on my part.

"the story of Noah's Flood says that two of every species on earth were summoned from every corner of the earth"

A. Yes, from every corner of the world back when the entire landmass was simply Pangia. B. It didn't say every species, it said every kind, and what the Bible refers to as a kind, scientific classification refers to as family, some kinds being sizable enough for science to call them orders. The way to know if multiple species are the same kind is by whether or not they can reproduce together.

"stuffed in a boat far too small to accommodate their needs,"

Once again, a kind is typically the level of a family, not a species. And creationists have been able to convert measurements of cubits in the Bible into feet, and the Noah's Ark was 450 ft long, 75 ft wide, and 45 ft tall, large enough for two of every kind as well as the food they'd need, and assumably some plantlife to start farms after the Flood ended.

"then disbanded back to their now desolate habitats to reestablish breeding populations and a functional food chain in an impossibly short time"

Animals settled back wherever conditions were best for them, or where GOD lead them to, as since HE directed them to the Ark, it is only natural HE also direct them to where they recolonize, and HE instructed them where to go, creating the foodchains. And as for how they reestablished breeding populations, each generation had multiple offspring, and those offspring interbred until even more offspring, and suddenly genuses and species are beginning to become distinct from one another.

"the amount of water on the earth's surface magically tripled then disappeared without a trace."

While HE easily would've done that, he likely didn't. The Bible says that in addition to the rain pouring from the sky around the world all at once for 40 days before the Flood officially began, water also sprouted from the ground, which of course means geysers and possibly other similar activity. Likely how the majority of geysers came to be.

"The Old Testament says that the earth is a flat disk separated into four quadrants, floating atop a primordial ocean abyss with pillars to support it and a crystal dome resting atop of it to stop the primordial waters from flooding in from above. This dome has "flood gates" through which God lets in rain and the waters to flood the earth. The sun and moon are then both sealed within this dome, and revolve around the earth."

Where on earth did you ever find that? The Bible does refer to the world as a circle at one point, and while this can be interpreted as a flat disk, it could also refer the orb the earth also is. Never in my life have I ever heard of this 'disk' idea in the Bible. Although if that is there, that could be metaphor, as GOD has given some of the Bible's authors as well as other important figures metaphorical visions, but that hardly disproves the Bible's validity.

"This is because the Old Testament says that all species with "the breath of life" were saved from Noah's Flood, and the concept of extinct species would imply otherwise."

This is false, as each dinosaur kind was saved on the Ark, but the majority didn't survive the ice age that followed the Flood, leading the survivors to become the few African monsters I mentioned previously. Furthermore, species have gone extinct since the Flood, multiple species, be it through compition with other species or Man's interference, the former being more prominent the further back in history one delves.

Take the Exodus for example; not only is there no historical evidence that suggests it ever happened, but all evidence seems to run against it. The Book of Exodus says that a band of 600,000 Israelite men with their families and non-Israelite constituents (a number estimated to total between one to two million) fled Egypt for the land of Canaan, and forcefully occupied the land in between for decade before reaching their goal. This is extremely improbable considering the fact that the entire Egyptian population at the time only numbered between 3 - 3.5 million. That would mean one to two thirds of the Egyptian population suddenly got up and left (after all the first born Egyptian men and animals were killed by an angel) without it ever being recorded by a contemporary Egyptian source or even leaving a single trace. According to the Bible, this enormous horde of people spent decades dwelling in a land that lacked the resources to support them all, before finally coming out into the land of Canaan, even though in this time period, the land of Canaan was actually under Egyptian rule, and would remain so for centuries. And interestingly enough, the locations mentioned in the text are usually described accurately for the time in which Exodus was written, but highly inaccurate for the time the events of the book supposedly took place. The Israelites are mentioned, for example, occupying cities described as bustling, fortified metropolises; even though many of these cities weren't even founded yet at the time the Israelites supposedly occupied them, and none of them suffered the destruction that Exodus claims they did.

Additionally, the OT doesn't have any more merit when it comes to accuracy or consistency than most other religions and religious denominations, including relatively modern ones such as Mormonism and Rastafarianism. The practice of compiling and editing fragments of older traditions into an authoritative record that is relatively consistent with itself is not uncommon, and can be found in religious cultures all over the world.

" The Book of Exodus says that a band of 600,000 Israelite men with their families and non-Israelite constituents (a number estimated to total between one to two million) fled Egypt for the land of Canaan, and forcefully occupied the land in between for decade before reaching their goal. This is extremely improbable considering the fact that the entire Egyptian population at the time only numbered between 3 - 3.5 million. That would mean one to two thirds of the Egyptian population suddenly got up and left (after all the first born Egyptian men and animals were killed by an angel) without it ever being recorded by a contemporary Egyptian source or even leaving a single trace."

I believe you may be looking for evidence in the wrong era, atheists have only ever had shaky foundations for Egytion chronology. This artical explains that there is in fact evidence that one of the pharaohs seemed to have vanished from history as Egypt went through a time of crisis: http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/exodus_egypt.php .
As you can see, they didn't dissapear 'without a trace', and I can provide more links to more evidence if this in insufficient.

"According to the Bible, this enormous horde of people spent decades dwelling in a land that lacked the resources to support them all,"

Resources blantedly stated to be received through GOD as he allowed Moses the ability to strike a large rock to produce the water they need and make mana fall from the sky to sustain their hunger, with a certain bird I forget the name of being provided later to satisfy their meat cravings.

"before finally coming out into the land of Canaan, even though in this time period, the land of Canaan was actually under Egyptian rule, and would remain so for centuries."

Once again, I believe you're thinking of the wrong period. But I've been over this already so why repeat myself?

The rest of that paragraph continues dealing with incorrect timelines, although as far as the destruction of cities, I would like for you to specify what cities and how they were said to be destroyed as I don't know exactly what you're referring to.

"Additionally, the OT doesn't have any more merit when it comes to accuracy or consistency than most other religions and religious denominations, etc"

I see your point.

"Something like that would be present in both somewhere in the genepool unless Population B was a subspecies..."

You talk as if my response was a hypothetical example rather than a real world one; the situation I described previously is one that actually does occur in the human genome.

"...it (the sickle cell trait) isn't a benifical enough mutation to be considered an evolution."

That's not how evolution works. Evolution by natural selection simply means that a mutation or trait, which increases an organism's chance of surviving to passing on it's genes, will be distributed more and more throughout the gene pool and "selected for" naturally by virtue of the survival advantage it provides. It is a made-up and erroneous miscategorization to say that the sickle cell trait, a mutation which demonstrably increases the chances of survival in locations where malaria is present, does not constitute an example of evolution by natural selection.

"Why do you assume benifical ones happen? Can you give me an example of a purely positive mutation with no negative side effects?"

In evolutionary theory, a mutation or trait is considered "beneficial" when it is more likely to be passed on by providing a survival advantage. Being "purely" positive has nothing to do with it. But if you insist, one example is the lactase persistence gene, which is the result of certain single-nucleotide polymorphism mutations on the MCM6 gene in the codons before LCT gene. It allows humans do digest dairy into adulthood.

"
You talk as if my response was a hypothetical example rather than a real world one; the situation I described previously is one that actually does occur in the human genome."

So they lost the gene sometime before they were exposed to the disease that gene helps resist.

"That's not how evolution works. Evolution by natural selection simply means that a mutation or trait, which increases an organism's chance of surviving to passing on it's genes, will be distributed more and more throughout the gene pool and "selected for" naturally by virtue of the survival advantage it provides."

And who or what selects those traits? What's stopping the natural process from allowing harmful things to develop in the genome? And what is making the higher survival rate genes appear more frequently?

"But if you insist, one example is the lactase persistence gene, which is the result of certain single-nucleotide polymorphism mutations on the MCM6 gene in the codons before LCT gene. It allows humans do digest dairy into adulthood."

A GOD given gene we've had since the creation of man.

"If it is metaphorical, what could it possibly be a metaphor of?"

As a non-Christian, it's not really my place to speculate. There is, however, the example of "eating from the tree of X," a known allegory frequently found in Biblical writing but only taken literally in the context of Genesis. Also, many Christians I know have suggested that the stories found in the OT were greatly distorted through thousands of years of oral traditions by the mythical minds of ancient people, or the result of revelations from God that were so beyond the comprehension of their recipients, that highly symbolic allegories were the only way they could articulate what they had seen.

"And if it wasn't the word of GOD, why would a little over a dozen authors, some of which remain unknown, write consistent writings without self contradiction when many of them did not even live in the same time frame?"

Firstly, the OT is not devoid of contradictions; there are plenty of clear ones concerning genealogies, names of places and people, specific numbers of people or money, what God created in what order, whether there was another woman before Eve, etc.., and many more thematic inconsistencies which, while not constituting explicit contradictions in and of themselves, require some interpretative gymnastics to reconcile. It is also the case that the OT, as it survives today, is the result of countless iterations of editing and rewriting in order to incorporate new passages, as well as smoothen out inconsistencies, both within itself and between it and the New Testament. It should also be remembered that the OT is an anthology; the pieces of religious literature that were more consistent with each other were collected for the compilation, whereas books or parts of books that recorded a different narrative were simply left out all together. The later authors were also able to consciously write their works to match up with the works of previous writers. Additionally, even though the OT is relatively consistent with itself (as rewritten compilations of oral traditions almost always are,) it is not consistent with history, even in events related about the more recent past.

"There is, however, the example of "eating from the tree of X," a known allegory frequently found in Biblical writing but only taken literally in the context of Genesis."

That is because Genesis is the only literal context in which it occurred.

"Also, many Christians I know have suggested that the stories found in the OT were greatly distorted through thousands of years of oral traditions by the mythical minds of ancient people, or the result of revelations from God that were so beyond the comprehension of their recipients, that highly symbolic allegories were the only way they could articulate what they had seen."

That is purely speculation on behalf of Christians who don't have full faith in GOD and prefer to find a compromise between CHRIST and evolution, which is altering the Bible, which has been stated multiple times to be a sin.

"Firstly, the OT is not devoid of contradictions; there are plenty of clear ones concerning genealogies,"

Their are two genealogies listed from Adam to JESUS, true, and that is because one is the genealogy of Mary and the other is of Joseph.

"names of places and people, specific numbers of people or money,"

I can't find examples of either of these contradictions. Could me give me some so I know what I'm working with?

"what God created in what order,"

That is not contradictory, it is explicitly stated what order HE created each thing in. Day 1: HE made light and separated it from darkness. At the time, it radiated directly from HIM, as other instances in the Bible note HIM as being very brightly lit. Day 2: HE created the light binding effect we know as the sky. Day 3: HE created the earth, and all the land, oceans, and plant life. Day 4: HE made the sun to produce light during the day and the moon to reflect it at night, as well as all the numerous stars and planets in the universe. Day 5: HE created aerial animals and aquatic life. Day 6: HE made the rest of the animals and finished HIS creation with the creation of Adam. Day 7: HE took a break, for whatever reason. What is contradictory about that?

"whether there was another woman before Eve,"

That's seriously a point of self contradictory? The possibility of a woman before Eve, despite this woman never bring mentioned in the Bible, which then labels Eve the first woman.

"Additionally, even though the OT is relatively consistent with itself (as rewritten compilations of oral traditions almost always are,) it is not consistent with history, even in events related about the more recent past."

Really? How is it inconsistent with history?

"It doesn't have to be entirely identical, but it still has to resemble our Earth."

It has to resemble our earth in parameters relevant to the development of life; Zakrisson's model is far too exclusive to have any kind of meaningful relevance to the viability of such circumstances. And again, his model stops at the present, which means it can't take into account that future planets may be almost identical to earth also.

"Chemical composition, particularly the atmosphere."

The chemical composition in the atmosphere seen today is the result of living organisms, not the other way around.

But anyway, I have a feeling we're going to have to switch gears here; I could delineate and disprove all the assertion you have made in this comment, and you could still (as you have before) cite inevident miracles of God to annul any proven scientific laws or logic I use. So perhaps it would make more sense to work things the other way around; if you are willing to cite inevident miracles based on the postulation of God's intervention, then why is it you are so convinced in the first place that the Old Testament, a two-and-a-half thousand year old anthology of Israelite tribal oral traditions, is not only the inerrant, but the literal, word of God?

"It has to resemble our earth in parameters relevant to the development of life; Zakrisson's model is far too exclusive to have any kind of meaningful relevance to the viability of such circumstances. And again, his model stops at the present, which means it can't take into account that future planets may be almost identical to earth also."

Ok, I suppose Zakrisson's model is a bad example, due to how many factors don't contribute to life formation, but the point still stands that life wouldn't be able to form on a planet vastly different from our own.

"The chemical composition in the atmosphere seen today is the result of living organisms, not the other way around."

Yes, I know planet life converts carbon dioxide to oxygen and animals and human life do just the opposite, but the gases needed to be there from the beginning or life wouldn't have been able to form.

"and you could still (as you have before) cite inevident miracles of God to annul any proven scientific laws or logic I use"

For the record, that happened once, and that was because I was to tired to think completely straight at the time. Had I not been tired, I would've known better, knowing that unlike people us flawed humans, GOD doesn't do things for the sake of doing them, and HE would have no purpose in adding onto the human genome.

"then why is it you are so convinced in the first place that the Old Testament, a two-and-a-half thousand year old anthology of Israelite tribal oral traditions, is not only the inerrant, but the literal, word of God?"

What reason have we to believe it isn't literal? If it is metaphorical, what could it possibly be a metaphor of? And if it wasn't the word of GOD, why would a little over a dozen authors, some of which remain unknown, write consistent writings without self contradiction when many of them did not even live in the same time frame?

The reason why I point out the Christian-orthopraxy dominant culture of the past is to point out that many of history's scientific breakthroughs that contradict the Bible come from a time when the pressure was against accepting them rather than for it, and yet such breakthroughs were still found logically convincing and found many followers; these people were willing to adapt the preachings of their religion in order to reconcile what they considered to be logical proof against the Holy Book. So it is unwarranted, and indeed ahistorical, to assume that secular cultural pressure is the reason why people of faith stray from the strictest possible adherence to Biblical narratives. Indeed, our "secularized" culture today is the very result of Christians rejecting literal interpretations of said narratives in favor of science; it was not until Christians started abandoning creationism in droves that a secularized dominant culture could even begin to form, and to claim that Christians continue to do so because it's now the dominant culture is, again, an ahistorical and unsubstantiated assumption.

As for your somewhat vague claim regarding all the things that would have "gone wrong" if it were not for divine intervention, you'll have to provide some specific examples. I should add, however, that such an argument is one for theism in general, rather than for Christianity or the Bible.

"The reason why I point out the Christian-orthopraxy dominant culture of the past is to point out that many of history's scientific breakthroughs that contradict the Bible come from a time when the pressure was against accepting them rather than for it, and yet such breakthroughs were still found logically convincing and found many followers; these people were willing to adapt the preachings of their religion in order to reconcile what they considered to be logical proof against the Holy Book. So it is unwarranted, and indeed ahistorical, to assume that secular cultural pressure is the reason why people of faith stray from the strictest possible adherence to Biblical narratives. Indeed, our "secularized" culture today is the very result of Christians rejecting literal interpretations of said narratives in favor of science; it was not until Christians started abandoning creationism in droves that a secularized dominant culture could even begin to form, and to claim that Christians continue to do so because it's now the dominant culture is, again, an ahistorical and unsubstantiated assumption."

Hey,I never said cultural pressure is the only reason. Heck, most probably aren't even aware that is among the reasons. And while I don't have an answer for any of that, there is a reason GOD's Word tells us faith is so important.

"As for your somewhat vague claim regarding all the things that would have "gone wrong" if it were not for divine intervention, you'll have to provide some specific examples. I should add, however, that such an argument is one for theism in general, rather than for Christianity or the Bible."

True, theism is more related to it than the Bible itself, but the Bible is a form of theism, and as such, this can be applied.

I was vague because of the sheer number of things that could've gone wrong.
Example1: The distance between the earth and the sun. Any further, and all water on earth would freeze while the atmosphere dissapted. Any closer and all the world's water would evaporate while the atmosphere baked everything else.
Example2: The chemical makeup of the earth. Everything on earth is made up of just the right chemicals for life to exist. To believe that happened by chance when the planet was being formed, for me at least, takes more faith than believing the Bible fully.

More examples coming, but the character limit is making me right a 2nd comment again.

Oops. Allow me to explain why 2 slightly worded differently versions of the same reply are there. The 1st was the original reply. However, when I tried to reply to my own comment to continue listing a few reasons why chance is far less believable than some supreme being, the reply button wasn't there. So I tried refreshing the page, but then the comment disappeared completely. So I rewrote it, but when I posted it, I found both comments there. And for whatever reason, it won't let me delete either of them. Idky. Ok, back to the debate:

Example3: Our solar system is placed in one of the arms of the milky way. I am not 100 percent on the details, but apparently life can only exist in the arm of a spiral galaxy.

And those are simply off the top of my head.

"Specific? I am not referring to one monster, but multiple monsters from multiple native tribes all throughout the still wild parts of Africa."

First of all, every "monster" you have mentioned is from the Congo basin region of Cameroon, Congo, and the DRC, so to say "all throughout Africa" is misleading. I also used the word "specific" because the Mokele-Mbembe is the only creature that researchers asked natives to compare to pictures of other animals. But I will not continue to speak on this tangent subject, because whether or not dinosaurs are still out there somewhere is not relevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.

"it (the human species) certainly would've devolved subspecies based on regions by now, especially if mutations were as benifical and common as you claim."

This is not accurate. While genetic mutations are extremely frequent, (the average person has about five dozen non-inherited genetic mutations,) The vast majority of mutations are harmless. Very few mutations happen to be harmful, and exponentially fewer of them happen to be circumstantially beneficial. But the rate of speciation within a genetic population is not a direct product of the mutation rate. The rate of speciation typically has more to do with genetic migration compounded by circumstantial change, as well as certain other complications. The time these factors take to result in speciation of any kind is highly variable, and doesn't necessarily have to be taxonomically observable within the last 120,000 years (which is the last time there was a Homo sapiens subspecies.) Indeed, an enormous range of phenotypical variation can be manifest within a species without constituting speciation.

"…genepools shrink with each generation as natural selection dispatches harmful genes. 4000 years ago, Noah and his family could have had big enough genepools for the entire modern human genome."

First of all, this hypothesis hinges on the principle that harmless genes are being selected against at an extremely high rate, which I have already established is not how adaptation works. And even besides that, no matter how many genes Noah and his family had, it still couldn't account for the genetic variation in humans today, due to the enormous number of highly polymorphic genes in the human genome. It would still be mathematically impossible, even if Noah and every member of his family did have the hundreds of chromosomes that would be required to account for the human genome.

"The rate of speciation typically has more to do with genetic migration compounded by circumstantial change"

That circumstantial change is exactly what I'm talking about. I know if Evolution were true it would take far to long to make new species, which is why I continue to say subspecies. Why aren't isn't there a human subspecies that evolved with more hair in the colder regions of the world, or subspecies that rely far less on water intake due to some bodily storage device similar to a camel's hump, or even a subspecies that evolved with radiation resistance like a cockroach(come to think of it, many more animals should've devoleped that if the cockroach did)? Wouldn't those heighten the survival rate?

Speaking of, aren't there better ways we could've 'evolved'? Wouldn't it make more evolutionary sense for us to evolve for physical ability rather than intelligence and sentience that hinders any instincts we might have had? Sure we devoleped weapons and the ability to craft them, but most animals have natural weapons built into there body, whether or be flaws, talons, meat ripping teeth and jaws, venom, or even just brute strength. So what happened with humanity?

"First of all, this hypothesis hinges on the principle that harmless genes are being selected against at an extremely high rate, which I have already established is not how adaptation works."

Incorrect, those harmless genes are where the generic variation you continue to say couldn't have happened came from. That and the 5 dozen mutant genes that every person apparently gets. Only genes that end up harmful would be selected against.

"It would still be mathematically impossible, even if Noah and every member of his family did have the hundreds of chromosomes that would be required to account for the human genome."

Even counting those mutant genes? 4000 years is a long time for a lot of people to be born, creating a lot of genetic variation. Come to think of it, I read an artical on how long ago the Flood was, and I must correct myself, it wasn't 4000 as I previously thought, it was 4800. That was my mistake before and I apologize for it.