(October 24, 2017 at 2:10 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 10:49 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Well how about this, the way our cells work make abiogenesis an impossibility, but for some strange reason that doesn't debunk abiogenesis, instead scientists theorize that ancient cells must have operated differently from modern cells.

This is what you said.

It doesn't debunk abiogenesis because there's absolutely nothing to say that cells couldn't/haven't evolved with us.  And that one of the more probable explanations happens to be laid out in the video you linked.

I mean, shit, can't you keep up with what you yourself say?

Again, you miss the point buddy, I said that to make a larger point which you deliberately left out. So now we're resorting to taking quotes out of context?

(October 24, 2017 at 10:49 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Well how about this, the way our cells work make abiogenesis an impossibility, but for some strange reason that doesn't debunk abiogenesis, instead scientists theorize that ancient cells must have operated differently from modern cells.

So what makes you so sure that cells don't degrade after reproduction (In all other cases a copy of a copy of a copy would be inferior to the original), so while we may currently see ill effects caused by a low gene pool, maybe ancient species didn't due to stronger genetics.

So to SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, if current cells are different than early ones, then why are you so sure that a low gene pool many years ago would affect a population the same as it does currently? Are we just going to assume that they remained exactly the same?

(October 24, 2017 at 2:49 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 10:49 am)Huggy74 Wrote: So what makes you so sure that cells don't degrade after reproduction (In all other cases a copy of a copy of a copy would be inferior to the original), so while we may currently see ill effects caused by a low gene pool, maybe ancient species didn't due to stronger genetics.

So to SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, if current cells are different than early ones, then why are you so sure that a low gene pool many years ago would affect a population the same as it does currently? Are we just going to assume that remained the same?

Already answered but conveniently ignored by you:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-51134-p...pid1644141

(October 24, 2017 at 11:11 am)Mathilda Wrote: There is a difference between a digital and an analogue copy. Copying an analogue tape or photograph means that noise builds upon noise as the signal degrades. Your computer on the other hand will make perfect copies each time no matter how many times it happens if no errors occur. But any errors that occur will be localised. Genetic reproduction is more akin to the latter than the former with errors being mutations. The theory of evolution accounts for the role of mutations over time. This is how new information enters a population. Most mutations are deleterious and die off. Some mutations are neutral and open up a new area of search space, while other mutations are beneficial and are more likely to be passed onto off-spring.

Because genetic proficiency is based upon a wide genetic availability to achieve a sustainable population growth.

The way this works is slightly different between Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic cells.

This is why bacteria and viral organisms exist, and the likes of us exist also.

For the love of rod  Huggies knowledge of genetics and cellular biology is shit .  This has gone for rage inducing to tragic

Seriously learn the difference eukaryotes and prokaryotes .And the difference between early cellular life. And animals like cats which would have modern freaking cells structures.

(October 24, 2017 at 3:08 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: For the love of rod  Huggies knowledge of genetics and cellular biology is shit .  This has gone for rage inducing to tragic

I think it's been proven over and over on this forum that Huggy is disastrously misinformed on most scientific matters.

The information arrow seems clearly biased away from people deeply embedded in mythology-worship. Many non-believers regularly speak coherently on the subject of religion, and liberal and moderate believers frequently have excellent science knowledge, but the most intransigent and literalist of believers seem to be utterly fucking incapable of doing either science or religion justice.

(October 24, 2017 at 3:17 pm)Astreja Wrote: The information arrow seems clearly biased away from people deeply embedded in mythology-worship.  Many non-believers regularly speak coherently on the subject of religion, and liberal and moderate believers frequently have excellent science knowledge, but the most intransigent and literalist of believers seem to be utterly fucking incapable of doing either science or religion justice.

But they're expert in both.

Just ask them.

(October 24, 2017 at 2:58 pm)JackRussell Wrote: Because genetic proficiency is based upon a wide genetic availability to achieve a sustainable population growth.

You guys keep saying that as if repeating the same thing over and over makes it true.
Wolves Are Suffering Less From Inbreeding Than Expected

Quote:Increasing levels of inbreeding is a threat against the viability of the Scandinavian wolf population. A study just coming out in the new journal PLoS ONE now demonstrates that inbreeding is not affecting the wolves as badly as expected. The results show that it is the most genetically variable wolf individuals that are recruited into the breeding population. An important consequence of this action of natural selection is that the negative effects of inbreeding are accumulating much slower than previously believed.

(October 24, 2017 at 2:58 pm)JackRussell Wrote: The way this works is slightly different between Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic cells.

This is why bacteria and viral organisms exist, and the likes of us exist also.

I don't see how this has anything to do with the above.

As usual, you selectively quote from something you cite without apparently having read or understood it. What does your article say will inevitably happen to genetic diversity/the effects of inbreeeding of that wolf population if novel genes aren’t eventually introduced by outsiders?

(October 24, 2017 at 2:26 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 10:17 am)Huggy74 Wrote: That being said, don't be so hard on yourself, I wreck arguments on a regular basis, think of it as a learning experience.

Yeah, you're a legend in your own mind.

I noticed you stopped short of asking me to provide evidence...