Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[KevinM1]

He’s not even worth responding to at this point. It’s all just noise from someone unwilling to even consider that reality isn’t actually like what superstitious people 2000+ years ago thought it was. The breadth and depth of what he doesn’t understand, at a basic, fundamental level, makes any kind of actual conversation nearly impossible. And I’m talking about things that most middle school students (at least, middle school students in New England) learn.

I never thought that looking at algae under a microscope and learning the barebones basics of evolution and other branches of science was somehow exotic. I guess I was wrong. I also guess I’m an idiot, because I keep expecting most people to understand this stuff, and am always shocked and dismayed by those who don’t just misunderstand it, but revel in not knowing.

Vote for actual science education, folks. Don’t let the creationists continue to make us dumber.

[Huggy Bear]

As usual, you selectively quote from something you cite without apparently having read or understood it.

It's not like I didn't post a link to the full article or anything.

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?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...074654.htm

Even if selection is favouring the wolves that are genetically diverse, genetic variation will inevitably be lost over time in such a small population as this one. But it will take much longer than previously thought.

If we go back to my previous question

why are you so sure that a low gene pool many years ago would affect a population the same as it does currently?

That would seem to agree with the point I was making does it not?

Further more the coefficient of inbreeding among this population of wolves is extremely high with an average of .25 which is the equivalent of mating siblings.

Inbreeding negatively impacts the survival rate.

I’ve owned several purebred dogs (German Shorthaird Pointers, all). One had regularly occurring seizures until she was fixed (seemed to be a severe hormonal imbalance). A couple others had frequent UTIs. These were not animals that would’ve been able to survive in the wild, domestication or not.

*emphasis mine*

[Anomalocaris]

He’s not even worth responding to at this point.  It’s all just noise from someone unwilling to even consider that reality isn’t actually like what superstitious people 2000+ years ago thought it was.  The breadth and depth of what he doesn’t understand, at a basic, fundamental level, makes any kind of actual conversation nearly impossible.  And I’m talking about things that most middle school students (at least, middle school students in New England) learn.

I never thought that looking at algae under a microscope and learning the barebones basics of evolution and other branches of science was somehow exotic.  I guess I was wrong.  I also guess I’m an idiot, because I keep expecting most people to understand this stuff, and am always shocked and dismayed by those who don’t just misunderstand it, but revel in not knowing.

Vote for actual science education, folks.  Don’t let the creationists continue to make us dumber.

I am not sure why anyone might have thought he could have been worth responding to at this point-1, or this point-1000.  People like him, god’s Child, Drich have from about their 50 or 100th posts been  as manifestly incapable of evaluating the contradictions, fabrications and overarching ignorances embodied in the text of their bible as blowflies are incapable of reviling the stench of a corpse.

[Ravenshire]

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

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

I was commenting on your prideful, self-aggrandizing comment. We've plenty of evidence of your arrogance.

[I_am_not_mafia]

why are you so sure that a low gene pool many years ago would affect a population the same as it does currently?

That would seem to agree with the point I was making does it not?

It's now clear that you're deliberately ignoring answers. Twice I have told you why your hypothesis is based on flawed understanding and twice you have ignored it. There is no clearer evidence that you are losing an argument when you deliberately ignore a point and continue repeating the same argument. It's not debating but spamming.

Let's make it three times shall we.

Already answered but conveniently ignored by you:

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

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.

[Amarok]

At this point he's not even listening . He's just ignoring genetics all together. And pushing his absurd ignorance of cellular evolution . To preserve his absurd fairy tale about a magic boat.

[Huggy Bear]

That would seem to agree with the point I was making does it not?

It's now clear that you're deliberately ignoring answers. Twice I have told you why your hypothesis is based on flawed understanding and twice you have ignored it. There is no clearer evidence that you are losing an argument when you deliberately ignore a point and continue repeating the same argument. It's not debating but spamming.

Let's make it three times shall we.

Already answered but conveniently ignored by you:

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

What you're not getting is HABITAT is a major factor in calculating MVP, so you suggesting that these same numbers apply post flood is just not true.

From your own link.

DETERMINING MINIMUM VIABLE POPULATION SIZES FOR THE GRIZZLY BEAR

http://www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl..._Vol_5.pdf

To preserve the grizzly bear in the northern Rockies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed designation of over 5,000,000 ha of public domain in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Washington as "critical habitat" for the species. This has triggered opposition from various interest groups and focused attention on the question of how much habitat the grizzly bear needs to survive (Fischer 1977).
      This is one example of an increasingly frequent scenario - a widely distributed species becoming confined to small fragments of its former range. Aside from any systematic deterioration in the quality of remaining habitat, such fragmentation exposes remnant populations to higher extinction rates.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Oh yeah because a world flooded mountain high with salt water for 40 day and nights (or 371 days) is exactly the right kind of habitat to release two (or 14) creatures to repopulate a species.

---

How far does light travel in the ocean?

The zone between 200 meters (656 feet) and 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) is usually referred to as the “twilight” zone, but is officially the dysphotic zone. In this zone, the intensity of light rapidly dissipates as depth increases. Such a miniscule amount of light penetrates beyond a depth of 200 meters that photosynthesis is no longer possible.

Yet you think that fossils of whales and marine animals were left by the great flood in the Andes mountain range which has an average height of 4,000 metres.

So no sunlight would have reached the ground killing all vegetation. Not to mention the effect of salt water on land-based plant growth.