• Mutations Do Create New Abilities

    A recent discussion here on Smilodon’s Retreat has prompted me to explain (again) that mutations, while not the only method of altering genetic codes, are still capable of creating diversity in living things.

    The claim is that mutation alone cannot account for the diversity of life.  Since the commenter specifically mentioned that he/she is OK with evolution, the question really is asking… where does the diversity of life come from.

    One the one hand, we have the evolutionary explanation. That is, all the taxonomic diversity we think we see is really a hold-over from trying to fit ancient organisms into a classification system based on modern organisms. The secret to diversity is that, really, speciation is the only thing that needs to happen. Every taxonomic group above species (depending on what definition of species you use) is really just a convenient approximation for us humans to group things.

    If this explanation is correct, then the ID proponents that admit evolution can cause speciation have lost the bigger game.  This is because speciation is the only thing that exists. Speciation over time will result in greater and greater differences between species (especially as some species that were transitional will have gone extinct), the appearance of which is that of the “sudden appearance” of large taxonomic groups in the history of life.

    An example that might help (and one I’ve used before) is that of families. You and your brother are different, but very closely related. The children of you and your brother are also fairly closely related, sharing roughly 1/4 of the same genes. They are cousins though.  These kids will grow up and have their own families. Now the youngest group are second cousins and while, more closely related to each other than to the majority of the rest of the human population, they are getting more and more distinct. Another generation and the children might not even realize that they are related even if they go to the same school or live in the same town.  Two more generations and you’ve got what are essentially separate family groupings that have never met, even though they are only five generations removed from a common ancestor (your parents).

    The families, by this point, may be radically different. Some living in rural towns, some in urban cities. Some are religious, some are not. Some are highly educated, some are not. Some are Smith’s, some are Richardson’s, some are McAnder’s, and some are Washington’s. I could go on.  The point is that nothing has occurred here except time and the normal mating practice of humans.

    On the other hand, we have the intelligent design explanation.  Which, as far as I’ve been able to tell (because literally no one will answer my question on the subject) is “Some intelligent thing, did something, at some point in time, using an unknown (and possibly unknowable) process. The exact nature of this intelligent thing is, by all accounts, totally immaterial to the nature of what it did and besides which, we are specifically barred from investigating the intelligent thing anyway.”

    Which brings me to the paper I’d like to talk about today. My friend Wesley Elsberry (and some others) did some recent work with Avida and developed some modules for the software that allows Avida organisms to move. While this doesn’t sound particularly interesting, it is.

    What Wesley did was create a “playing field” for the organisms. Then he put a pile of resources in a spot on the board. The resources created a gradient that was highest at that point.

    Then they put some Avida organisms on the board and let them move… and evolve. Mutation was the only mechanism of change in the population. There wasn’t any sex or other exchange of genetic information.  The initial batch of organisms just randomly moved through the field. The movement cost them though. The organisms need the resources. Moving costs them resources that they need to reproduce.

    In the end, even with only mutation as the mechanism of evolution, the organisms evolved eight unique behaviors used to get them the resources that they needed. The organisms also went from randomly distributed around the board (only covering 2% of the board) to the majority of the organisms tightly clustered in the high resource area. One of the evolved types could also follow the resource peak if the researchers moved it.

    In other words, mutation alone was perfectly adequate to generate a variety of unique organisms and allow them to flourish.  Even more, there was a diversity of organism types.  Though there was but a single resource, clustered in a single area, eight types of organisms evolved, each with a different method for finding the most resource.

    Every evolutionary run produced at least one recognizable movement strategy. Because each run began with an Avidian whose only capability was self-replication, initially what movement occurred showed no such recognizable movement strategy. Almost all runs resulted in the successive evolutionof two or more movement strategies (e.g., Figure 7)

    Now, this quote from the paper also illustrates a common complain from creationists about the use of software to emmulate evolution. That is, the programmers inserted the needed code somehow so that it would act like evolution, but really it was designed.

    As this shows, that’s not the case. In every run of this simulation, the only thing the initial organisms could do was self-replication.  Those organisms that had mutations that allowed them to move became successful. That’s how evolution works. In the land of the eyeless, even the light-sensitive cell is king.

    If the code for search strategies was somehow inserted into the code, then it should be trivial for someone to request a copy of the software, examine it, and find examples of the code that causes the organism to evolve in a particular way.  Of course, in the decades of genetic algorithms, no one has ever found such code.  Indeed, that’s a huge black mark against the possible existence of a designer.  No one has ever found anything in any organism’s genome that would indicate this ‘front-loading’ of genetic plans such that it would be easy to evolve a new function.

    Nope, organisms, digital or organic, have to evolve the hard way. The researchers show this by running the simulation over 100 times. The ‘climber’ strategy only appears in about 12% of the 100 simulations. Since it appears to be an extremely effective tactic, one would think that a front-loaded genome would produce climbers more often than anything else, since it’s the best strategy.

    This is just another of the things that creationists don’t understand about evolution. Evolution doesn’t result in the best organism, just one that is good enough given the previous generation and a few mutations.

    As far as the other comment in that thread, “can mutations generate macroevolution”… well, that’s another creationist misunderstanding.  It’s all just evolution. I’ve talked about it before.

    But that’s the whole creationist schtick of people like Meyer. Misrepresent the actual evidence, takes quotes out of context, and when shown that one is wrong, move the goal posts. It’s so common that I’m not even sure that the followers of the ID movement realize that they are doing it.

     

     

    Category: CreationismEvolutionScienceTechnology

    Tags:

    Article by: Smilodon's Retreat

    • gil

      new abilties doesnt mean new systems. lets say that we want to add a gps system to a car. we will need at least 2-3 new parts. or in a living thing- 2-3 new proteins. its mean that there is no step wise to get a news system with new parts. its not like to move an abs in the car from the pront of the car to the back(new function). so the evolution cant explain this kind of cgange.

      • SmilodonsRetreat

        Umm… did you read what happened in this paper. The organisms went from a complete inability to move, to developing the most effective methods for seeking food.

        Oh, and please don’t try to compare things that don’t reproduce with things that do. It’s not a valid comparison.

        • gil

          yep. and it is not like evolution at all. for exmaple:
          you said:
          ” In the land of the eyeless, even the light-sensitive cell is king.”-
          i agree. and here the problems begin. a minimal eyespot is about 200 proteins:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyespot_apparatus
          “Besides photoreceptor proteins, eyespots contain a large number of structural, metabolic and signaling proteins. The eyespot proteome of Chlamydomonas cells consists of roughly 200 different proteins”
          so the evolution is in big problem just from the begining.

          • SmilodonsRetreat

            Not really. Look up “Opsin”. Light sensitive proteins have been in the history of life almost since the beginning.

            Tell, you what though. Let’s assume that evolution is in trouble.

            Describe the mechanism that Intelligent Design uses to explain how eyes developed. Explain this in the same amount of detail that you require for evolution, that is,a complete step-by-step description. Show references that have data to support your explanation.

            • gil

              opsin doesnt work alone to make a minimal eye. so even the beginning is very complex and cant evolve step wise.
              we dont know for shure how the designer made all living things. but we know for shure that its not by evolution.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              You may “know” that, but you can’t provide any evidence to support it. Meanwhile, evolution continues to actually work.

              Face, the current state of ID is no more advanced than when it started 200 years ago. Something, somehow, did something, somewhen… and we don’t know any of it. Even further, even if we did know something about it, it’s not controllable by humans, it’s not falsifiable, it’s not even testable. Meanwhile, evolution continues to be supported by evidence from dozens of fields.

              You guys continue to say “in can’t evolve stepwise”, yet, we continue to find more an more examples (see this OP) where structures and process actually can evolve stepwise.

              But continue to hide your head in the sand and pretend that ID is somehow meaningful.

            • gil

              you said:
              ” but you can’t provide any evidence to support it”-
              actually i can. the flagellum is an organic motor. and we know that a motor need a desginer. like car need.
              ” it’s not falsifiable, it’s not even testable.”-
              not realy. if you will evolve me an eye from a organisem without eyes- then you disprove my argument.
              ” Meanwhile, evolution continues to be supported by evidence from dozens of fields.”-
              not realy. evolution doesnt predict anything. for exmaple: what will disprove evolution in the field of fossils?
              “You guys continue to say “in can’t evolve stepwise”, yet, we continue to find more an more examples (see this OP) where structures and process actually can evolve stepwise.”-
              no. show me how a gpscell phonecar or any complex system can evolve step wise to prove you claim.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Can you tell me the fundamental difference between a living thing and a GPS/cell phone/car?

            • gil

              yep. they are not self replicat and not made from organic material.but we now talking about kind of complexity. we found this kind of complexity both in living things and man made machines. so again- if there is no step wise for complexity of man made object. why do you think there is step wise in living things? lets evne say that we have a self replicat material. is this kind of material will evolve into a walking robot or a car?

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Calculate the complexity for any man made object. Explain show you do so.

              Calculate the complexity for any organic thing (protein, DNA, organ, your choice). Explain how you do so.

              If you do this, with actual math. I’ll give you a guest post here. The guest post should explain the equations, why the variables in the equations have the value that they do, and what the results mean and why.

            • gil

              again- we talk about kind of complexity. a complexity that require some parts working together for a funcion. again- a motion system for example need at least 2-3 or more parts to a minimal function. how we can explain this in step wise evolution?

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              again, I ask you to mathematically compute the complexity for a given system.

            • gil

              i dont know if we have the right number but we can know that it is very low. for example see this paper:

              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

              The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10(64) signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10(77), adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Oh… Dougals Axe. You might want to read a paper by someone who isn’t a creationist. For example: http://phys.org/news/2014-02-evolutionary-important-success.html

            • gil

              this paper is peer review. but lets go on with yours papers. according to the evolution scientists, what is the chance to get functional sequence in 100 amino acid long protein?

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Define “functional sequence”. In many ribozymes, the metabolically active area can be only 3 nucleotides long. Further, the number of possible 3 nucleotide active sites is not yet determine, but is probably many more than just 1. So, the odds of getting an active area in a 100 amino acid chain are nearly 100%.

              For example: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/12/0912895107

            • gil

              i dont talk about ribozyme but about protein. according to the evolution a lot of proteins evolve and add new systems. so again- what is the chance to get new functional sequence in a 100 aa long protein?

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              The problem is that that calculation is simply impossible to do.
              1) We don’t know what the functional sequence is. In other words, any sequence could be functional under the right conditions.
              2) The binding affinity of all amino acids is not equal. Any determination of probability would have to take into account that certain amino acids are more likely to bind with other amino acids than not.
              3) It doesn’t matter in terms of OOL problems anyway, because ribozymes were the likely precursor to DNA and proteins.

              In other words, what’s the point to your question? Are you trying to scare people with big numbers and low probabilities?

            • gil

              hi.actually the scientists themself admit that evolution has limit. i see some papers claim that even 100 aa its a lot:

              http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000096

              even so. if we talk about 2 proteins. how much 2 a parts fucntional systems a humans can make?bilion?100 bilions? its nothing compare the whole space.

              “2) The binding affinity of all amino acids is not equal. Any determination of probability would have to take into account that certain amino acids are more likely to bind with other amino acids than not.”-

              yep. but its very small impact.

              “3) It doesn’t matter in terms of OOL problems anyway, because ribozymes were the likely precursor to DNA and proteins.”-

              who talk about abiogenesis?its evolution of proteins.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              From the article you cited

              After 20 cycles of random substitution at sites 12–130 of the initial random polypeptide and selection for infectivity, the selected phage showed a 1.7×104-fold increase in infectivity, defined as the number of infected cells per ml of phage suspension.

              my bolding

              2) Of course it matters. because you are talking about a completely random event. No one else is talking about that. You want to do some calculation that is impossible to determine, because you haven’t considered things that affect that calculation. Your simple dismissal of factors that directly affect your calculation show that you don’t care about the results… as long as you think that they support your beliefs.

              3) I am talking about abiogenesis. Because NO ONE (except creationists) think that proteins just popped into existence fully formed with all of their coproteins and targets intact.

              All scientists agree that proteins, coproteins, and their targets evolved over a long time period. Sometimes not even doing close to what they are doing now. Ignoring that time, the billions upon billions of opportunities developed through mutation, ERVs, gene copying, epigenetics, and evodevo etc is a fundamental mistake.

              Even if it were all true. Even if you disprove evolution right here, right now, it still doesn’t mean that any form of creationism is correct. Only positive supporting evidence will do that and we both know you have none for anything other than evolution.

            • gil

              hi. you said:
              “Because NO ONE (except creationists) think that proteins just popped into existence fully formed with all of their”-
              actually there is such one:

              http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.il/2009/11/de-novo-genes-what-are-chances.html

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Hunter is a creationist, not a scientist. So my point remains. And you still haven’t posted any evidence to the contrary.

            • gil

              here example for 60 de novo genes in human genome:

              http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002379
              hunter is a scientist. or you define scientist as someone who dont believe in god?

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              From the paper: However, de novo origin, which means genes originate from a non-coding DNA region, is considered to be a very rare occurrence.

              Actually what this paper does is also defeat your claims that mutations can’t generate new functions. Because there is NO evidence that these genes originated from a designer.

              Indeed, the authors state that they identified the precursor genes in chimpanzees or orangutans and the mutations completed the reading frame, resulting a functional protein.

              Thus, you have successfully refuted your own arguments. Thanks for playing. I expect you to become a supporter of evolution and reject creationism now. After all, YOU cited this paper, therefore you agree with the authors, at least to some degree. You must then, also agree with their conclusions.

              I define anyone who ignores scientific evidence a creationist. Michael Behe is a creationist. Douglas Axe is a creationist. Cornelious Hunter is a creationist. They define themselves as such. Not me. At one point, they might even have been good scientists.

              However, good scientists do not ignore evidence, lie, misrepresent, and use semantic arguments to support their untenable position.

            • tonyhoo

              You are claiming you are a person who is greater than Newton and Einstein, because they believe in God, they are not the scientist.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bgVaf9u4Cs

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              I would encourage you to actually read what people write, instead of what you think or wish they wrote.

              People can be religious and scientists. Creationists are not scientists, because they do not do science. They do not follow the scientific method. They do not use logic and evidence to come to a conclusion.

              Creationists, like Hunter, Behe, Axe, and the rest have a conclusion that is not supported by ANY evidence, and they try everything that they can to MAKE data fit what they want to be true.

              That’s not science. That’s dogma.

              Again, read what I wrote and respond to that.

              P.S. I assure you that any evidence that would disprove evolution is NOT going to be in a youtube video.

            • tonyhoo

              I suggest you never forget the missing link. if you say “in the future”,that is just an excuse, as loads of “in the future” have already been “in the past” since Darwin.If you say you have a number a evidence, you will be disappointed,as they all have been proven the scandals.

            • Doc Bill

              Actually, tonyhoo, all this evolution stuff is just a diversion to keep the masses (like you) distracted from the real work of Scientists as the technical arm of the Illuminati as we quietly plunder the Earth. Already, 50% of the world’s wealth is owned by a mere 50 of our top leadership and we are on schedule to own it all very, very soon. I can tell you this because even if you went to the press, nobody would believe you and, besides, we own the press!

            • tonyhoo

              Please remember that TRUTH WILL COME TO THE LIGHT SOONER OR LATER. No one can stop it

            • Doc Bill

              Too late, tonyhoo! The Illuminati own the Truth. You are but a pawn in their plans.

            • tonyhoo

              I do not want to prove something with this video, just remind you guys don’t forget yourselves in your pride, you are not the embodiment of the truth,don’t make the mistake like the evolutionists who declared that 98% of human being genes are “junk” genes. That is not science but anti-science, just the evolutionists want to maintain their belief – Darwinism

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              You have no idea how science works do you?

            • tonyhoo

              I
              think you mention Francis Bacon’s scientific
              method, but this is nothing to do with the scientific
              method. Since long time ago, so many scientists who believed in God did
              the scientific research with the fearing and worship heart. Because they
              believed that God created the universe and the laws, they did scientific research
              to find how the laws work to glory God
              and reveal His greatness and wisdom. Time
              and time again history has proven that they were very successful; they had obtained
              huge achievements and given the enormous contributions to the human being. Likewise,
              because the evolutionists thought that 98% of human being genes were “junk”
              genes to just maintain their theory and face, but the scientists who believe in God
              said “No”, God created the human being, God is never wrong, every parts of
              human body are sure to have their duties. They keep doing the research, and found
              that even non-coding genes have their duties, which prove the greatness and
              wisdom of God. Therefore if a scientist does the scientific research with the
              heart of glorifying God, he will never fail to be successful.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              First, I never said anything about Bacon. The scientific method is a method for learning about the universe in a structured repeatable way.

              Again, because you don’t seem to be getting it… beliefs of the scientists DO NOT MATTER. The problem comes from a religious scientist ignoring the evidence in order to promote an ideological belief that has no evidential support. Something that people like Ken Miller and Robert Bakker can do and people like Hunter, Behe, etc cannot do.

              And about junk DNA? SO what? Who corrected those misunderstandings with more data? Scientists… not creationists.

            • tonyhoo

              God is very pleased that we can know Him, through science we can know Him further and further, this is why Einstein said ” The more I study the science, the more I believe in God.”. Just as what the Bible is written: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Why don’t creationists ever learn?

              Einstein did not believe in a personal god.
              here are some actual quotes with references for you to consider.

              I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
              (Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding “Do you believe in God?” Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)

              A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
              (Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science”, New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930)

              I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)

              I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
              (Albert Einstein, Obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)

              It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it Dukas, Helen (1981). Albert Einstein the Human Side. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 43.

            • Doc Bill

              No, I’m claiming that you are an uneducated idiot. Nobody cares what you think and I laugh so much at your stoooooopidness.

            • tonyhoo

              No matter how you varnish evolution, if it cannot explain the missing link,it is just a hypothesis.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              I’m sorry, but you are going to have to become a lot more knowledgeable before playing in the big leagues.

              I can list dozen transitional fossils off the top of my head. There are fossils that we don’t have, but that’s to be expected. There are transitional fossils are almost every major category of life form currently extant.

              Evolution, a long time ago was a hypothesis. Since then, 150 years ago, it has developed into a scientific theory with mountains of evidential support, confirmed predictions in dozens of fields of science, and is used on a daily basis in dozens of industries.

            • tonyhoo

              I am very interested in hearing that, please advise the details of what you claimed about the transitional fossils.
              By the way, just want to tell you that one of my professor has made the fossils in the lab which were tested to be the ones millions years ago. if you can give me the details I will ask her to discuss with you.
              Looking forward to the details.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Seriously? What was he using carbon dating? What university?

              Start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

              Read every single page, then download and red every single reference (part 15).

            • tonyhoo

              Please remeber that WHOSE HAND THE TRUTH IS IN, NOT JUST BECAUSE WHO IS IN POSSESSION OF MORE KNOWLEDGES.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              When you provide some evidence for the existence of a deity, then we’ll talk. Otherwise, I think we’re done here.

            • tonyhoo

              Here is my email address: tonyhoo2006@gmail.com
              I expect your information. Many thanks.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              I posted the link below. Start there.

            • tonyhoo

              Bible Proverbs 12:22
              Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord,
              but those who act faithfully are his delight.
              http://creation.com/intelligent-design-a-war-on-science-says-the-bbc

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Creationism is not science. There is no evidence. I have provided evidence. You don’t understand what that means apparently.

              Intelligent Design is a war on science. The leaders of the intelligent design movement have publically stated that they wish to replace materialism based science with Jesus-centered religion.

            • tonyhoo

              The fact is that a scientist who does the scientific research in order
              to follow the thoughts of God and reveal His power and wisdom will have more achievements and contributions to the human being than those who do the scientific research based on the human being’s thoughts which evolutionism is one of them.

              Please remember that in some day you will understand why God redeem human being through the Cross which is regarded as a foolish way by the people who think that they themselves are intelligent.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Bull cookies. A “scientist” who aims only to show God must reject reality, must reject evidence, and must reject everything that makes a person a scientist. That person is little more than a story teller, trying to alter both science and religion to make them fit together. Anyone who is intellectually honest understands that they do not.

              I’m sorry, but I will never understand why you worship the monster that your religion calls ‘god’.

            • tonyhoo

              Firstly please remove the “only” from your post (7th word), please streamline your understanding.

              Secondly I am surprised that you don’t know what the religion is and what the faith is.

              At last I will pray for you for the forgiveness from God. Please remember that the monster you mentioned may forgive you, see Bible

              Matthew 18:21-22
              Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

              Luke 23:34
              Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Even if your god existed (which it doesn’t), why would I even want forgiveness from that monster, when it’s the gods fault that I need that forgiveness in the first place?

              My understanding is not the issue. Your blind faith without any evidence is.

            • tonyhoo

              Please do not forget that the modern western civilization was born and developed based on Greek culture and Christian culture, neither of the two can be dispensed. Also please do not confuse the religious Christianity and political Christianity with the Christianity as a faith, the former two are that some interest groups use Christianity as their tools for themselves interests and benefits, what they do is just come from their own will rather than from God will, they are abhorrent to reason and anti-science.

              But the Christianity as a faith is that each of the individual builds up the relationship with the God who is powerful, kind, merciful, righteous, holy and faithful based on the Bible and with the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Christianity as a faith is not against reason but respecting and beyond reason. In the development history of the modern western civilization, a lot of great scientists had gained the great achievements with this faith. Furthermore, the developments of the science in recent decades’ years, more and more facts point toward that there is a God. God is very humour and patient, He will let human being know that the science made human being turn away from Him in the beginning, but eventually the science will send human being back to Him.

              Remember that Naturalism and Scientism will lead human being to the end. Nowadays, evolutionism has been to a position where the supporters just want to maintain their faith through twisting the facts and truth, which has gone to the point of the pseudoscience, even anti-science.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              1) You continue to say things without any evidence to support your claims.

              2) You continue to say things that are fundamentally wrong. It’s only your personal bias that makes it seem legitimate.

              3) There is STILL no evidence for any form of any deity or even any supernatural thing.

              4) You still don’t even understand the evidence that supports my claims. All you can offer are empty threats.

              Let me just ask you one question. How old is Earth?

            • tonyhoo

              The age of the Earth you have known is not based on the fact but just a faith of the evolutionist which the evolutionist tries to match the evolution. The scientist still keep wanting to figure it out. Even if it could be that long as you want, it cannot prove that the evolution is the truth. In a word, the evolutionism is just a faith.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              So, here’s what I get from your “response” (as it is not an answer).
              1) You don’t understand evidence, scientific or otherwise.
              2) You have no idea about the sheer amount of evidence that supports the scientifically derived age of Earth.
              3) You aren’t willing to state an age based on whatever evidence/faith/beliefs you have.

            • tonyhoo

              Only evolutionist is willing to believe the figure which is based on the arguments in circle between the paleontology and paleogeology. Because if the age of the Earth is not like that long, the faith of the evolutionism will be completely crashed, but for the Intelligent Design,the age of the Earth can be longer also can be shorter.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              I think we’re done here. You haven’t said anything new, anything with any evidence to support it. Indeed, the things you have claimed have been refuted in other posts on this blog. Feel free to look around.

            • tonyhoo

              Anyway, I hope you are going well, and when you see Bertrand Arthur William Russell, he will tell you how regret he is to ask the evidence from God while the evidence is just in front of him.

              In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not understood it.
              The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
              For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

              Pray for you

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Don’t pray for me. Do something that has a chance of working.

              Tell me, why do you reject Zeus?

            • tonyhoo

              Zeus was created by human being or by the ancient Greek, but God our Lord created the human being.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              How do you know this? How are you sure that Zeus didn’t create the human beings and that the human beings then didn’t create your god?

              Remember that the Bible is no more self-authenticating than any of the Greek mythology. Remember that the Bible is no more self-authenticating than the Koran.

              If you say that the Bible is the only “word of god”, then you have to provide evidence for this. “Because the Bible says so,” is not evidence. This is clearly circular logic.

              Likewise, personal experience is not evidence either. You have no more evidence that your beliefs stem from god than they come from Allah, Zeus, Satan, Cthulhu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

              So, how do you know? I already know what you BELIEVE to be true. I also know that had you been born in the Middle East you would have EXACTLY the same beliefs about the Koran. If you have been born in India, you would have EXACTLY the same beliefs about the Hindu religion. If you had been born in North America circa 1000, then you would have EXACTLY the same beliefs about coyote and eagle and such.

              So how do you know that Zeus really isn’t the god of all creation and that the Bible is all a myth?

            • tonyhoo

              To complete my reason.

              Everyone knows that when you have seen the truth, you will naturally turn away from the false. Christianity is based on not only the faith but also the facts. Facts are from the archaeology, history and science.
              If someone really wants to know the God, God is willing to reveal himself to him. Refer to the Bible Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”

              The God our Lord Jesus Christ said “He is the way, the truth and the life.”. He not only created us, but also came to the world in person among us, died for our sin on the Cross, which resolved the issue of the human being’s sin. In the third day, He rose from the death, which resolved the issue of the human being’s death, and gave us the hope of the eternal life.

              Believe in Him, our conscience and spirit will be completely wakened up. We will clearly know who we really are, and eager to leave from the sin, and repent. No matter what we were like before, God, with full of mercy and grace, will forgive our sins, so we will be justified.

              Follow Him, submitting to the Holy Spirit to live the righteous, holy and pure life, we will be sanctified.

              Hold on to following Him until Jesus Christ coming again, we will be glorified with the Lord Jesus Christ.
              This is the complete salvation of the human being.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              Again (and I find this EXTREMELY common among apologists), you aren’t actually answering the questions. And you are totally making stuff up.

              There is zero difference between everything you have said and anything someone who worships Zeus or Odin or Cthulhu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster says. None.

              It’s all just made up. There is no evidence to back up anything you have said.

              As far as sin… where did sin come from? Oh yeah, God. So, he fucked up, punishes us forever unless we do what he says. You, sadly, cannot see that you are exactly the same as Tom Cruise promoting Scientology. You both laugh at each other because you aren’t following the “Truth”.

              The only truth can come from evidence and neither you have any. Science does. If you don’t like science, then put away your computer, your cell phone, your TV, your car, any form of transportation for that matter, your food, and all the medical advances. Then see how long you last. Pray all you want, you’ll still be dead before you’re 35.

            • tonyhoo

              You will recall what you said today, we will talk about what is the truth again in some day. A little bit words, keep the conscience whatever, whenever wherever you do something. Have a good life journey.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              And I want you to think very carefully about your attitude in this conversation. You couldn’t answer even the most basic of questions about your own belief system.

              You must not have much confidence in it.

            • tonyhoo

              Really thank you for this discussion with you, your attitude and words make me further understand the accurate and precise analysis and dissection of the human nature in the Bible. Also thanks God gave me this opportunity. You will understand in some day.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              You attitude makes it very clear how you think. Your continued refusal to answer questions shows, at heart, your personal faith is very weak and can’t stand the light of reason being shown upon it.

              I hope that someday you will understand reality, not the fantasy world you have been fed.

            • tonyhoo

              Please refer to the link below. You may have the confidence to make Jim Tour understand the evolution with the evidences you have possessed in the lunch time (The lunch will be his treat:)).
              http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-%E2%80%9Ctheory%E2%80%9D-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-%E2%80%9Cscience%E2%80%9D/

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              I would suggest that he read this: http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2013/09/16/where-higher-orders-of-life-come-from/

              If he accepts so-called “micro evolution”, then he accepts “macro-evolution”. Mainly because there is no such thing as ‘macro-evolution’. It’s all just evolution at the species level.

            • gil

              its still 60 protein that unique to humans. but are you claim that these proteins was active and then become junk and then bacome active again in humans??if its come from noncoding dna then its like rendom scretch or near rendom.

            • SmilodonsRetreat

              That’s not what I claimed and you know it.

              Please write better. I’m not going to spend time deciphering your stuff.

            • Timothy Horton

              gil said “actually i can. the flagellum is an organic motor. and we know that a motor need a desginer. ”

              Why does the designer have to be intelligent or the “design” consciously created? Evolutionary processes are known to produce amazingly complex and efficient “designs” with no external intelligence required.