ARK Encounter opens today!

[buckshot24]

Good thing we also have:

• Uranium-Lead Dating
• Samarium-Neodymium Dating
• Potassium-Argon Dating
• Rubidium-Strontium Dating
• Uranium-Thorium Dating

Thank you for taking the time to post those words, I am so in awe of your copying and pasting ability. Not really relevant to anything whatsoever however. You still can't get carbon dates on an evolutionary time scale which agentwhatever suggested.

Now you've already been schooled on evolution and I already explained how the earth and solar system formed from about 300,000 years after the Big Bang until now in that other thread. So no reason to rehash that.

I haven't been schooled but thanks again for saying something worthless.

If you want, check out this video for some more background on stellar element synthesis.
https://youtu.be/6yLGeviU8FM

You've just been waiting to try and draw me into that argument. Still not going to get into it.

Do you have ANYTHING relevant to what has been discussed or is it just past your bedtime gramps?

 

[abj13]

The denominator cancels out and is completely irrelevant. In other words it means nothing. What would a single coin flip's odds mean if there were 6 billion other coins flipping? 50/50 the amount of coins doesn't mean a thing.

I did, I said that is one way to do it but that isn't what I was doing. I told you how I calculated it. You can't accept my words on what was being said so why do you keep asking?
Yes I do. This is why I ignored you in the past. You keep making these false allegations about me and refuse to be corrected because of reasons.
First of all I do understand it, you keep putting forth things I haven't said or intended. If there is any confusion please let me explain it and shut up and listen. Asking more questions and assuming less would do you a world of good. Hostility and emotions are getting the best of you.

But this shows me that you did understand my math but dishonestly attacked me based on your strawman. tsk tsk my dear friend.

Ah, doubling down on your bungled usage of math and ignorance of the science you try to post here. It is amazing how anti-science people can be. Once again, have you read that paper you posted? It is extremely telling how after showing how you don't even understand what the denominator means in the very paper you mention, you still refuse to even address the paper you posted, and then refuse to quote me posing the question of whether you read it, let alone address the fact of whether you read it or not.

So do you know how 1x10^-9 was calculated? Explain it to us in your own words. This is the funny part if buckshot actually understood the basis in which that number was calculated...

Yet again, you get busted for posting something you haven't read, when it contradicts what you've written here. Ah the standard illogical points often used by creationists.

A specific 2 point mutation is only going to happen 100 times in 10^20 organisms. A 3 point mutation will happen every 1 billion x 10^20 organisms. In this time there was a rat like creature that supposedly turned into mammoths, kangaroos, blue whales and bats.

I'm also not saying that a 3 point mutation must happen for any change to occur or that this is a "rate". I'm saying that in order for blind processes to "find" these solutions you need a heck of a lot more animals than has ever existed on earth.

Do I know of any specific changes that would be this difficult? No I don't.

This is exactly why I didn't mention this in the very beginning, it was exactly as I suspected.

Buckshot: Here's some absurd calculation using wrong numbers to demonstrate a number that would be impossible for evolution to have occurred.
Me: Do you know of anything that exists currently that would require your absurd mechanism to exist?
buckshot: No I don't

This is the very definition of a strawman argument, making up an example that doesn't even exist in the real world. See, that's the hallmark of anti-science postings like yours. You do not even know how to generate an appropriate claim or hypothesis. If you want to disprove evolution, at least use a real world example, instead of "oh, well, I actually don't know of any specific changes that would be this difficult." But great job on completely discounting why you even post here, just to make up stuff to sound smart, but are completely irrelevant.

But this goes back to the 175 new mutations per generation in humans, and if you think about the rate and genome size in bacteria. That is a significant number of mutations per generation in bacteria.

When did I claim they don't exist?

If it can be shown that mutations do anything other than break and kill existing functions, that at times turn out to be a local benefit, then I'd reconsider.

Twice now in about 3 posts you've been caught denying things when you have said them in the past. So when are you going to finally talk about all these novel genes that you claim don't exist?

Long M, VanKuren NW, Chen S, Vibranovski MD. New gene evolution: little did we know. Annu Rev Genet. 2013;47:307-33.

 

[agent00f]

Thank you for taking the time to post those words, I am so in awe of your copying and pasting ability. Not really relevant to anything whatsoever however. You still can't get carbon dates on an evolutionary time scale which agentwhatever suggested.
I haven't been schooled but thanks again for saying something worthless.
You've just been waiting to try and draw me into that argument. Still not going to get into it.

Do you have ANYTHING relevant to what has been discussed or is it just past your bedtime gramps?

Speaking of substance, the fact you continuously refuse to engage in any despite the attempts of many here does not go unnoticed.

In simple terms, the more you weasel around the worse you make creationism & the religion it's associated with appear.

I can't imagine mainstream christians & their institutions look kindly upon their albatross of backward bumpkins.

 

[buckshot24]

Ah, doubling down on your bungled usage of math and ignorance of the science you try to post here.

I guess you're not going to shut up and listen. You've got it all figured out, don't you.

It is amazing how anti-science people can be. Once again, have you read that paper you posted? It is extremely telling how after showing how you don't even understand what the denominator means in the very paper you mention, you still refuse to even address the paper you posted, and then refuse to quote me posing the question of whether you read it, let alone address the fact of whether you read it or not.

Instead of asking me what I mean you know what I mean even better than what I do.

The paper has nothing whatsoever to say about my calculation, except the value I use for a single mutation occurring at a specific spot of the genome. That is all I posted it for. The denominator has nothing to do with anything, it cancels out.

So do you know how 1x10^-9 was calculated? Explain it to us in your own words.

Yes I know. Each position in the genome will change once out of every 10^9 cell divisions. There is a 10^-9 probability that each point will change.

This is the funny part if buckshot actually understood the basis in which that number was calculated...

Why don't you talk to me instead of to the crowd? We're supposedly having a discussion. Although I don't see any honesty whatsoever coming from your side.

Yet again, you get busted for posting something you haven't read, when it contradicts what you've written here. Ah the standard illogical points often used by creationists.

I'm sorry but you really are just stupid or insane. That paper doesn't do anything to contradict anything I've written.

This is exactly why I didn't mention this in the very beginning, it was exactly as I suspected.

Buckshot: Here's some absurd calculation using wrong numbers to demonstrate a number that would be impossible for evolution to have occurred.

It is precisely the correct calculations using the correct numbers but you're either too stupid to understand or simply insane.

Me: Do you know of anything that exists currently that would require your absurd mechanism to exist?
buckshot: No I don't

Since you've mind read me from the beginning what number am I thinking of?

There are some candidates, Krebs cycle for one. Specifics don't matter. I'm showing what the boundary is to your fairy tale is. Any change that requires 3 specific simultaneous changes is only going to happen once in 10^27 cell divisions. When you look at the variation of mammals I think this is significant. You, being brainwashed, maybe not so much. Don't care.

This is the very definition of a strawman argument, making up an example that doesn't even exist in the real world.

I didn't say it didn't exist. Lying again or is this simply your insanity kicking in?

But this goes back to the 175 new mutations per generation in humans, and if you think about the rate and genome size in bacteria. That is a significant number of mutations per generation in bacteria.

So what? Any 3 specific changes are going to only happen once out of 10^27 organisms which is a boundary for mammalian evolution.

Twice now in about 3 posts you've been caught denying things when you have said them in the past. So when are you going to finally talk about all these novel genes that you claim don't exist?

You've been stewing about an 8 month old conversation. I am not going to go back and examine all 7k of my posts for things I may have said. Especially with a blithering idiot like you (or you may be simply insane).

 

[buckshot24]

Speaking of substance, the fact you continuously refuse to engage in any despite the attempts of many here does not go unnoticed.

In simple terms, the more you weasel around the worse you make creationism & the religion it's associated with appear.

I can't imagine mainstream christians & their institutions look kindly upon their albatross of backward bumpkins.

Are you going to have the integrity to admit that you didn't know how carbon dating worked or not?

 

[Subyman]

I didn't say anything about that. Your reasoning is simply wrong. The date of something has nothing to do with the maximums of any dating method.

Btw, I know you're trolling me.

So you do believe in the biblical age malarkey? We have items that show very old ages and you yourself said carbon dating is accurate to 100k years which is longer than any biblical age I've seen creationists give.

 

[Paratus]

Thank you for taking the time to post those words, I am so in awe of your copying and pasting ability. Not really relevant to anything whatsoever however. You still can't get carbon dates on an evolutionary time scale which agentwhatever suggested.
I haven't been schooled but thanks again for saying something worthless.
You've just been waiting to try and draw me into that argument. Still not going to get into it.

Do you have ANYTHING relevant to what has been discussed or is it just past your bedtime gramps?

Are you going to have the integrity to admit that you didn't know how carbon dating worked or not?

Are you going to admit the words I "copied and pasted" from the link I provided show how radiometric dating can be used to date things back 4.5 billion years. Carbon only works for a limited time so other radioactive elements with longer half-lives are used.

You're the one who's brought up hydrogen to people a half dozen times this thread so stop begging for it if you don't want to discuss it.


Gramps. That's a new one. Insults are the last resort of someone who has no arguement.

But you did get one thing right it's time for bed.

 

[buckshot24]

So you do believe in the biblical age malarkey? We have items that show very old ages and you yourself said carbon dating is accurate to 100k years which is longer than any biblical age I've seen creationists give.

I didn't say it was accurate to 100k years, that is the maximum date it could give. That is the theoretical limit.

 

[agent00f]

Are you going to have the integrity to admit that you didn't know how carbon dating worked or not?

Carbon is one element/isotope used for radiodecay dating, the math/principles behind all of which are the same. The material only changes one variable.

Again, the problem is that you simply don't grasp how much any sort of expert knows. Just as special olympic baller or their couch equivalent simply don't know what's involved with pro ball, despite their oft self-confident nature.

Like here you're very impressed that you remember carbon dating is word-associated with 100k years, and believe this makes you somehow "knowledgeable". I mentioned this here using you as the very example: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=38323368#post38323368

There's really no explaining to someone who thinks science is a collection of facts how any of this works.

 

[abj13]

The paper has nothing whatsoever to say about my calculation, except the value I use for a single mutation occurring at a specific spot of the genome. That is all I posted it for. The denominator has nothing to do with anything, it cancels out.
Yes I know. Each position in the genome will change once out of every 10^9 cell divisions. There is a 10^-9 probability that each point will change.

Although I don't see any honesty whatsoever coming from your side.

1) Did you read that paper?
2) If so, how did they determine the 1x 10^-9 value? How is their calculation different from the other paper I previously mentioned and their mutation rate per nucleotide site?

These aren't complex questions if you read the paper. And yet when you are asked repeatedly, you don't answer these simple questions. You complain about honesty, why are you continually refusing to answer such basic questions? But this is how you continually troll these forums. Instead of intelligent discussion, its all about you posting strawmen, fake arguments, or posting off topic in a thread.

There are some candidates, Krebs cycle for one. Specifics don't matter. I'm showing what the boundary is to your fairy tale is. Any change that requires 3 specific simultaneous changes is only going to happen once in 10^27 cell divisions. When you look at the variation of mammals I think this is significant. You, being brainwashed, maybe not so much. Don't care.

Ah, so you are an expert now in the Citric Acid Cycle. So what portion of that cycle required three mutations to be present in the same cell? Specifics do matter, because if you cannot come up with any kind of real world answer, you've posted nothing but an irrelevant strawman.

So what portion of the citric acid cycle required three mutations in the same cell?

Here's a thought experiment, especially if you like calculating things, I'll give you correct numbers. In E coli, their estimated mutation rate is about 2.6 x10^-10. If the genome size of E coli is 5,000,000 nucleotides (taking roughly the median size for E coli), and the doubling time of E coli is about 30 minutes in the log phase... and we assume endless resources and no impact on fitness at each site, how many mutations will have accumulated in one week?

I didn't say it didn't exist. Lying again or is this simply your insanity kicking in?

Do I know of any specific changes that would be this difficult? No I don't.

Hahaha. Your anti-science ways has clouded your ability to even remember what you just posted. The count is now three times you claim something you've never said, only to be shown you have.

You've been stewing about an 8 month old conversation. I am not going to go back and examine all 7k of my posts for things I may have said. Especially with a blithering idiot like you (or you may be simply insane).

So you aren't going to own up to your dishonest statement? So when are you going to finally talk about all these novel genes that you claim don't exist?

Long M, VanKuren NW, Chen S, Vibranovski MD. New gene evolution: little did we know. Annu Rev Genet. 2013;47:307-33.

But we know how this is all going down. Instead of answer some of the simple questions posed above, you'll make more snide comments about me being some sort of "idiot" and then throw around your list, as if it absolves you from your repeated dishonesty. Classic buckshot, he can't handle complex arguments so he runs and hides from them.

So again, I'll ask one last time for this post (since I know I'll have to ask again), what portion of the Citric Acid Cycle requires three mutations to occur in the same cell? You brought it up, so what part meets this requirement?

 

[buckshot24]

Are you going to admit the words I "copied and pasted" from the link I provided show how radiometric dating can be used to date things back 4.5 billion years. Carbon only works for a limited time so other radioactive elements with longer half-lives are used.

I didn't mention those methods and I didn't make a fundamental error on the limits of carbon dating. I feel no compulsion to admit anything. Not relevant to anything being discussed.

You're the one who's brought up hydrogen to people a half dozen times this thread so stop begging for it if you don't want to discuss it.

I'm sorry if you think that is me volunteering to discuss everything within the history of the universe. If you think it is then please accept my retraction of those statements.

Gramps. That's a new one. Insults are the last resort of someone who has no arguement.

I meant it in the most loving way possible. Actually, I apologize, abj got me riled up a bit.

But you did get one thing right it's time for bed.

Goodnight.

 

[buckshot24]

1) Did you read that paper?
2) If so, how did they determine the 1x 10^-9 value? How is their calculation different from the other paper I previously mentioned and their mutation rate per nucleotide site?

Doesn't matter in the slightest.

These aren't complex questions if you read the paper. And yet when you are asked repeatedly, you don't answer these simple questions. You complain about honesty, why are you continually refusing to answer such basic questions? But this is how you continually troll these forums. Instead of intelligent discussion, its all about you posting strawmen, fake arguments, or posting off topic in a thread.

These questions have nothing to do with any point I've made.

Ah, so you are an expert now in the Citric Acid Cycle.

When did I say that? Why are you framing every statement I make like this? Does dishonesty make you feel good?

So what portion of that cycle required three mutations to be present in the same cell? Specifics do matter, because if you cannot come up with any kind of real world answer, you've posted nothing but an irrelevant strawman.

They don't matter.

So what portion of the citric acid cycle required three mutations in the same cell?

Take a hike.

Here's a thought experiment, especially if you like calculating things, I'll give you correct numbers. In E coli, their estimated mutation rate is about 2.6 x10^-10. If the genome size of E coli is 5,000,000 nucleotides (taking roughly the median size for E coli), and the doubling time of E coli is about 30 minutes in the log phase... and we assume endless resources and no impact on fitness at each site, how many mutations will have accumulated in one week?

A completely irrelevant amount. You still don't understand my point yet you act like you do.

Hahaha. Your anti-science ways has clouded your ability to even remember what you just posted. The count is now three times you claim something you've never said, only to be shown you have.

I didn't say they didn't exist, I said I didn't have any examples.

So you aren't going to own up to your dishonest statement? So when are you going to finally talk about all these novel genes that you claim don't exist?

Nope.

But we know how this is all going down. Instead of answer some of the simple questions posed above, you'll make more snide comments about me being some sort of "idiot" and then throw around your list, as if it absolves you from your repeated dishonesty. Classic buckshot, he can't handle complex arguments so he runs and hides from them.

I did give you the option of being insane. You're either too stupid to get my point or you're too insane to discuss them rationally.

So again, I'll ask one last time for this post (since I know I'll have to ask again), what portion of the Citric Acid Cycle requires three mutations to occur in the same cell? You brought it up, so what part meets this requirement?

You can ask until a 3 point mutation occurs in your brain and you finally understand my mathematics. Did you notice that I said it was a candidate? Why do you dishonestly rephrase my statements into declarative assertions? You're either insane or stupid. I'll assume you're insane and that you can't help it.

 

[Subyman]

I didn't say it was accurate to 100k years, that is the maximum date it could give. That is the theoretical limit.

So about how far back would you say it is accurate to?

 

[agent00f]

I didn't say it was accurate to 100k years, that is the maximum date it could give. That is the theoretical limit.

Case in point, this can only come from someone who can't grasp how radiodecay works nor subsequently how dumb this sounds.

This Ark exhibit is rather counting on such folks to get their $60 for a fake boat that teaches fake history.

 

[buckshot24]

So again, I'll ask one last time for this post (since I know I'll have to ask again), what portion of the Citric Acid Cycle requires three mutations to occur in the same cell? You brought it up, so what part meets this requirement?

As soon as you accurately explain my mathematics then we can discuss Krebs. Until then I see no reason to waste our time.

 

[buckshot24]

Case in point, this can only come from someone who can't grasp how radiodecay works nor subsequently how dumb this sounds.

This Ark exhibit is rather counting on such folks to get their $60 for a fake boat that teaches fake history.

I take it that you don't have the integrity to admit you screwed up what carbon dating can do. Noted. Not only are you incompetent but you're an incompetent liar.

 

[Franz316]

Buckshot, math is a scientific tool. How do your beliefs allow for using math but not biology or chemistry?

 

[MongGrel]

I have been kind of just watching a bit from the side on this one.

Several people that have no clue at all are pretty amusing to begin with, but I expected as much.

 

[buckshot24]

So about how far back would you say it is accurate to?

Who cares? 100k is the limit. Accuracy is unverifiable at those ranges.

Platinum alpha decays and has a half life of 1000 trillion years. Does that mean the universe must be older than that? Your logic doesn't hold up.

Rubidium has a half life of 49,000,000,000 years so it can theoretically test ages much older than you believe the universe to be. According to your logic the earth is older than 4.5 billion years. Is it?

 

[buckshot24]

Buckshot, math is a scientific tool. How do your beliefs allow for using math but not biology or chemistry?

What is wrong with biology and chemistry? I have to believe a microbe turned to you over a few billion years in order to see how the Krebs cycle works? Or how titration works?

 

[abj13]

Doesn't matter in the slightest.
These questions have nothing to do with any point I've made.

They matter immensely. If we are going to talk about mutation rates, we have to understand the how and why they are calculated. One cannot just throw numbers out, ignore the denominators of what they represent like you have. So if we are going to talk about mutation rates, I have to know what your knowledge base of them are, especially if you are going to post papers on here about them. So:

1) Did you read that paper?
2) If so, how did they determine the 1x 10^-9 value? How is their calculation different from the other paper I previously mentioned and their mutation rate per nucleotide site?

When did I say that? Why are you framing every statement I make like this? Does dishonesty make you feel good?
They don't matter.
Take a hike.
You can ask until a 3 point mutation occurs in your brain and you finally understand my mathematics. Did you notice that I said it was a candidate? Why do you dishonestly rephrase my statements into declarative assertions? You're either insane or stupid. I'll assume you're insane and that you can't help it.

The only dishonest person is you. You've been caught three times making statements that are completely false. If you want someone like Hillary Clinton prosecuted for making false statements, why aren't you owning up to them?

But the fact is, you mentioned the Citric Acid Cycle as a "candidate." So please explain to everyone reading this thread why is it a candidate example of a cell requiring three mutations? Why did you bring it up at all? You spoke about it, there must be a reason. Or are you just making things up in a vain attempt to sound educated? Its ok to admit that you are only making things up, people already recognize your strawman argument.

But if you don't want to use the Citric Acid Cycle as your example of situations in which three mutations are required in a cell, what is your favorite example? Because, if you don't have any examples, your posting about "cells having three mutations" is nothing but a bunch of hot air, purposely made to distort reality.

A completely irrelevant amount. You still don't understand my point yet you act like you do.

Ah, but it is completely relevant, especially once you do the math. How many mutations will be generated in a week? 10 years? 1,000 years? I'm using the mutation rate from the paper you cited. So do the math, how many mutations are generated given the genome size and log growth parameters of E coli?

I didn't say they didn't exist, I said I didn't have any examples.

Caught three times in only a few posts.

Nope.

So when are you going to finally talk about all these novel genes that you claim don't exist?

Long M, VanKuren NW, Chen S, Vibranovski MD. New gene evolution: little did we know. Annu Rev Genet. 2013;47:307-33.

Called me insane [x]. Called me an idiot [x]. Unfortunately for you, your posting demonstrate your dishonesty and vain attempts to sound educated on the subject. If you really meant to discuss the Citric Acid Cycle, why did you bring it up?

As soon as you accurately explain my mathematics then we can discuss Krebs. Until then I see no reason to waste our time.

We cannot discuss your mathematics unless I know that you understand how the 1 x10^-9 value was calculated in the first place. Why is it different from the other paper I previously posted? These discussions cannot occur unless I know you actually understand how that number was calculated.

Did you read that paper?

 

[MongGrel]

I take it that you don't have the integrity to admit you screwed up what carbon dating can do. Noted. Not only are you incompetent but you're an incompetent liar.

Hey, you do not have enough integrity to recognize you are a complete fool yet, get over it

 

[buckshot24]

Hey, you do not have enough integrity to recognize you are a complete fool yet, get over it

That hasn't been demonstrated. He was wrong and won't admit it. If something I've said is wrong tell me.

 

[buckshot24]

We cannot discuss your mathematics unless I know that you understand how the 1 x10^-9 value was calculated in the first place. Why is it different from the other paper I previously posted? These discussions cannot occur unless I know you actually understand how that number was calculated.

Then we're at an impasse. Back to the list.

 

[abj13]

What is wrong with biology and chemistry? I have to believe a microbe turned to you over a few billion years in order to see how the Krebs cycle works?

Actually you do. How else will you understand mutation rates? How will you understand phylogeny of the proteins contained in the cycle? How will you understand fitness advantages associated with ATP generation?

That's the problem with cherrypickers of science like yourself, you don't actually practice science. You like it when its convenient and fits your assumptions about the world, but when you presume something in science disagrees with your own assumptions, you reject it. That's not science, that's your dogma.