re: Fossils in Greece Suggest Human Ancestors Evolved in Europe, Not Africa

quote:

---

These examples suggest that the ultimate probability of the success of a random search—and the plausibility of any hypothesis that affirms the success of such a search—depends upon both the size of the space that needs to be searched and the number of opportunities available to search it. In Darwin’s Doubt, I show that the number of possible DNA and amino acid sequences that need to be searched by the evolutionary process dwarfs the time available for such a search—even taking into account evolutionary deep time. Molecular biologists have long understood that the size of the “sequence space” of possible nucleotide bases and amino acids (the number of possible combinations) is extremely large. Moreover, recent experiments in molecular biology and protein science have established that functional genes and proteins are extremely rare within these huge combinatorial spaces of possible arrangements. There are vastly more ways of arranging nucleotide bases that result in non-functional sequences of DNA, and vastly more ways of arranging amino acids that result in non-functional amino-acid chains, than there are corresponding functional genes or proteins. One recent experimentally derived estimate places that ratio—the size of the haystack in relation to the needle—at 10 to the 77 power of non-functional sequences for every functional gene or protein. (There are only something like 10 to the 65 power atoms in our galaxy.)

---

This page goes over most of what's wrong with these creationist calculations.

quote:

---

What matters to a planet 1 million light years way right now?

---

exactly. the universe still exists there no matter what is going on here. which is why your stance that the universe doesn't continue after all humans die seems foolish.

the universe existed before us and will exist after us. we are still utilizing the plants that died before we were here by drilling for oil, who is to say a future species won't utilize the resources we leave behind?

anything is possible. the unlikeliness of us being here proves that.

we already had Neanderthals, Denisovans, etc. that were intelligent mammals on earth, you can't count out another somehow evolving if humans were wiped out

quote:

---

This page goes over most of what's wrong with these creationist calculations

---

That page is also from 1998. This peer-reviewed paper from 2010 says pretty much the same thing. This peer-reviewed paper from 2012 is the response. This article, also from 2012, cites both papers in a much easier to follow manner.

Wilf and Ewens argue in a recent paper that there is plenty of time for evolution to occur. They base this claim on a mathematical model in which beneficial mutations accumulate simultaneously and independently, thus allowing changes that require a large number of mutations to evolve over comparatively short time periods. Because changes evolve independently and in parallel rather than sequentially, their model scales logarithmically rather than exponentially. This approach does not accurately reflect biological evolution, however, for two main reasons. First, within their model are implicit information sources, including the equivalent of a highly informed oracle that prophesies when a mutation is “correct,” thus accelerating the search by the evolutionary process. Natural selection, in contrast, does not have access to information about future benefits of a particular mutation, or where in the global fitness landscape a particular mutation is relative to a particular target. It can only assess mutations based on their current effect on fitness in the local fitness landscape. Thus the presence of this oracle makes their model radically different from a real biological search through fitness space. Wilf and Ewens also make unrealistic biological assumptions that, in effect, simplify the search. They assume no epistasis between beneficial mutations, no linkage between loci, and an unrealistic population size and base mutation rate, thus increasing the pool of beneficial mutations to be searched. They neglect the effects of genetic drift on the probability of fixation and the negative effects of simultaneously accumulating deleterious mutations.

Finally, in their model they represent each genetic locus as a single letter. By doing so, they ignore the enormous sequence complexity of actual genetic loci (typically hundreds or thousands of nucleotides long), and vastly oversimplify the search for functional variants. In similar fashion, they assume that each evolutionary “advance” requires a change to just one locus, despite the clear evidence that most biological functions are the product of multiple gene products working together. Ignoring these biological realities infuses considerable active information into their model and eases the model’s evolutionary process.

Look, I’m no evolutionary biologist ( I do know what a woman is ). I can’t go toe to toe with Richard Dawkins on the specifics of evolution. What I can do, is identify the motivation behind any given argument. For an atheist, evolution by random, unguided processes absolutely has to be true. The implications otherwise are simply unbearable. With an uncalibrated moral compass, and no fear of culpability by a Higher Power, they will defend their position by any means necessary; laying waste those who would dare to challenge their religion.

I don’t have a problem with natural selection/adaptation. God created kinds, and those kinds changed over time. I do, however, take issue with universal common descent- as I believe it directly contradicts the Word of God (though I admit I may be wrong). Whether you believe in God, or Darwinian evolution as being responsible for the formation and development of life- 99% of us hold those positions based solely on faith.
You can no more demonstrate Darwinian evolution in your living room, than I can call down fire from Heaven. Yet, here we are- fighting for what we believe in.

Ask yourself this: why is it necessary to teach the theory of evolution? What are the implications? What are the results?
Well, the implications are that there is no God, no objective morality, and that we are merely animated meat buckets with no free will, and therefore no real consequences for our actions/inactions beyond our finite time on earth. The results are subjective truth, more genders than you can shake a stick at, a greatly diminished value of human life (your own and others)- from the womb to the tomb, and a level of greed, corruption, sexual immorality, and all other forms of sin that are rivaled only by the pre-flood days of Genesis.

quote:

---

Also, the search process is happening in parallel. Nature is checking many combinations at the same time.

---

Wow. Nature sounds very… Intelligent.

quote:

---

Wouldn't natural selection contradict the Word of God too though?

---

No. God created kinds (or classes). From there, what you call natural selection, and I call Intelligent Design, took over- generating the diversity of life we see today. There’s nothing in the Bible (that I’m aware of) that identifies a contradiction between natural selection and the biblical account of creation.

quote:

---

why would something that God creates change?

---

Because He designed it that way. Because it is His creation. Perhaps, He enjoys watching His creation develop- in the same way that we enjoy watching our children grow. Have you ever built anything? I have. Not only do I enjoy the final product- I enjoy the process.

quote:

---

For an atheist, evolution by random, unguided processes absolutely has to be true. The implications otherwise are simply unbearable.

---

Unbearable? I don't think you understand atheism. They would be fine believing wherever the evidence leads. Currently there is a grand total of zero evidence in an omnipotent creator who made everything (and also for some reason cares if you have premarital sex. Oh and also has a penis for some reason).

quote:

---

Why believe in a concept (God) created over 2000 years ago, well before modern understanding of the universe both macro and micro

---

Well, the simple fact that as long as humans have existed, they have proclaimed the existence of God, should at least make you pause to reflect on why that is. There’s two ways to look at it. One, that they were trying to explain what they couldn’t understand, or, they were trying to understand what they couldn’t explain- which is exactly what we still do today. If the Genesis account is true, then generations upon generations of people existed with a limited knowledge of God’s existence, but no understanding of His inexplicably complex plan for humanity. I can see how this would lead to the many variations in descriptions of God, that share many similarities.

quote:

---

without any proof whatsoever to describe the universe and how it was made etc

---

Really? Genesis 1:1- In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…” All the way up to the early to mid 1900’s, the general consensus was that the universe, itself, was eternal. Isn’t it ironic, that it was our modern understanding of the Big Bang (a pejorative term, coined by Fred Hoyle to express his disdain for the death of the eternal universe theory) that confirmed what God’s Word proclaimed thousands of years before the telescope was invented?

quote:

---

I'll never understand that

---

My friend, it is not a matter of understanding. It is a matter of pride and emotion. There is nothing more intellectually untenable about accepting God as a your hypothesis, than there is in accepting that 30 million species of life evolved from a single cell- that we can’t adequately explain the existence of. Both positions require a tremendous amount of faith.

quote:

---

accepting that 30 million species of life evolved from a single cell

---

The pseudo intellectuals love to gloss over how that cell with a full set of DNA code just appeared. And don't say alien, that just kicks the can. How does that much chemical code, in a specific order, just appear in a puddle one day?

Not to mention the origin of the universe and the big bang actually pointing to a creation event. And don't come with some infinite bang loop, again kicking the can. Stuff came from somewhere. All the science you throw at it can just bring tiny pictures of what has happened, maybe a hint of how, since the stuff showed up.

quote:

---

We are still trying to figure that out scientifically. The big bang happened 14 billion years ago, but the observable universe is 93 billion light years in diameter. The explanation presently is well space/dark matter is expanding or stretching as the celestial bodies in it move outward. But there is no evidence of that. There will probably never be evidence of that.

---

We do know conclusively though that the universe is expanding, that's not in question. Whether or not something called dark matter/energy drives that is debatable but not the fact the universe is expanding