How do you know God isn't dead?

[Ryantology]

A series of books written thousands of years ago by people who copied down tales passed down by word of mouth by superstitious illiterates for centuries who insisted that the earth was made in a week when their technological mastery was such that they could reliably date absolutely nothing in the entire world is obviously of more use than all this modern fancy pants science, which is obviously nothing more than a giant humanist conspiracy to discredit the word of God and lead the good sheep astray to the waiting clutches of Satan. [/thread]

[The Grand Nudger]

Very often Ryan.....I wish I had written another's post..rather than my own...lol.

[Statler Waldorf]

A series of books written thousands of years ago by people who copied down tales passed down by word of mouth by superstitious illiterates for centuries who insisted that the earth was made in a week when their technological mastery was such that they could reliably date absolutely nothing in the entire world is obviously of more use than all this modern fancy pants science, which is obviously nothing more than a giant humanist conspiracy to discredit the word of God and lead the good sheep astray to the waiting clutches of Satan. [/thread]

Straw-man fallacy.

Yet "never" manages to happen quite frequently and with very little in the way of impetus.

Nope, neutral mutations have never been observed to increase genetic information or lead to a novel feature in a population of organisms, no more smoke and mirrors- your theory is dead.

Until you can adequately describe what a mutation "must be" - in order to be passed on or become fixed in a population I won't be moving any further. The correct answer to this - is that it must be non-deleterious. Full stop.

Nope, it must become fixed in the entire population through genetic drift, and as I correctly pointed out you do not have enough trials in order to originate any new functional genes through neutral mutation and then fix them in a population; it’s a ridiculous notion and you should know better.

You see, this is very simple. If we have before us a population whose members are spread out unevenly (by genetic makeup) on the right and left sides of some defined area...and I annihilate either side while leaving the other intact - this is an example of genetic drift....and those traits carried unevenly by one side of the area or another will become fixed in the remaining population due to my less than genetically equivalent destruction of the available sources of heredity on other side (not that my intervention seems to be required...but if we're dealing with a sufficiently large population it sure helps to speed the process along). The genes themselves offered nothing in this exchange - neither those advantageous or neutral mutations that may exist in the remaining population are at play - and yet both may become fixed (or lost) going forward. Genetic drift is, simply put, the effect of chance on allele frequency.

As I correctly pointed out you do not have the appropriate number of trials for neutral mutations to affect the genetic makeup of your hypothetical population so this scenario could never arise. Not only that but believing all the genetic diversity we see today was a result of animals uniformly spreading themselves out according to their genetic makeup in order for an isolation event to separate them is quite hilarious.

Which is probably why it hasn't been suggested. Which leads me to ask why you've spent so much time arguing against it?

When you’re arguing for mutations that are by definition selectively neutral all that is left are mathematical probabilities, and they do not favor your position in the slightest. There’s a reason Dawkins rejects this type of overemphasis on neutral mutations, the math does not add up.

That model would be what? "The Creationist Model of Things I'd Rather Argue Against Than Modern Synthesis"?

You’re not arguing for Modern Synthesis, you’re arguing for the Neutral Model of Evolution, the two are not synonymous, learn your theory.

[Ryantology]

Straw-man fallacy.

only begins after the last comma. Everything before that is an honest summary of the Christian creationist argument.

Very often Ryan.....I wish I had written another's post..rather than my own...lol.

I'll trade.

Where has it been documented that the Christian God specifically, and no other god, created life? Has this been observed and detected?

[The Grand Nudger]

Nope, neutral mutations have never been observed to increase genetic information or lead to a novel feature in a population of organisms, no more smoke and mirrors- your theory is dead.

Again..and as usual, you appear to be arguing against your own theory.

Nope, it must become fixed in the entire population through genetic drift, and as I correctly pointed out you do not have enough trials in order to originate any new functional genes through neutral mutation and then fix them in a population; it’s a ridiculous notion and you should know better.

A mutation must become fixed in the population by genetic drift if it is to be passed on or fixed in a population? That's news to me. More of your theory?

As I correctly pointed out you do not have the appropriate number of trials for neutral mutations to affect the genetic makeup of your hypothetical population so this scenario could never arise.

Are you having trouble understanding what happens to allele frequency when one specific segment of a population becomes over-represented relative to the total population?

Not only that but believing all the genetic diversity we see today was a result of animals uniformly spreading themselves out according to their genetic makeup in order for an isolation event to separate them is quite hilarious.

Agreed....so, thanks for the laugh, I guess?

When you’re arguing for mutations that are by definition selectively neutral all that is left are mathematical probabilities,

Finally, you get something right.

and they do not favor your position in the slightest. There’s a reason Dawkins rejects this type of overemphasis on neutral mutations, the math does not add up.

-and then fuck it up in the next breath. My position - as I have stated very simply is all that a mutation must be to be passed on or become fixed in a population is non-deleterious. Modern synthesis holds that while genetic drift is an inevitable consequence of the law of large numbers - of chance acting upon allele frequency...natural selection is a much more powerful and constant means of effecting change -this barring those instances of drift set in motion by population bottlenecks.

You’re not arguing for Modern Synthesis, you’re arguing for the Neutral Model of Evolution, the two are not synonymous, learn your theory.

Thus leading me to conclude that you have absolutely no clue what you're on about - whatsoever.

[catfish]

By the way, if god is alive and still interested in his humanity experiment, I challenge him to refix my head on backwards on my body by tommorow morning. I will then wear it that way for the rest of my life as a testament to his existence.

So, we'll all be putting this whole god business to rest within a day. Stay tuned for the results.

I'm not a literal fundy-type person so I'm gonna take your words as a figure of speech.

God exists, thank you for being my proof.

[Minimalist]

Straw-man fallacy.

No. An accurate representation of the primitive shit you call a bible.

[smax]

God exists, thank you for being my proof.

Whoa there, Joseph! I know you are trying desperately to invent a new religion, but don't go starting one in my name.

[catfish]

God exists, thank you for being my proof.

Whoa there, Joseph! I know you are trying desperately to invent a new religion, but don't go starting one in my name.

Dude, you've been walking around and posting like your head is on backwards so I thought it was a testament...

[Gilgamesh]

I remember singing a song in kids club that went something like this:

"Gods not dead, no way, he is aliiiive,
Gods not dead, no way, he is aliiiive,
Gods not dead, no way, he is aliiiive,
I can feel him all over me"

Then we go on to describe the different body parts we're feeling him with.