What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?

[robvalue]

This thread is about "worst arguments for theism", and trying to trash evolution based on incredulity and ignorance is not only a bad argument but it's not even an argument for theism.

An intelligence does not equal a god, whatever the fuck a god is anyway. A god does not equal Yahweh, which is what you believe before even beginning with any science. And Yawheh does not equal the particular version of Yahweh that lives in your head, after you've filtered out all the bits of the bible you don't like.

You didn't reach the conclusion that Christianity is true through science; you're just trying to poison what you see as the alternative, to try and convince yourself your pre-drawn conclusion is somehow rational. But anyone who knows the first thing about science does not employ the argument from ignorance, neither do they employ "done by magic" as a hypothesis.

Science is about modelling and testing. What model, and what tests to back up that model, does anyone who believes in ID ever propose?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Unfalsifiable claims are useless.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

So far the argument boils down to "yeah but it can't be evolution" (argument from incredulity) or "it must be designed" (fallacy of proof by assertion).

Asking "why don't people automatically assume it's a creator" is one of the weirdest ways of arguing against evolution I've ever come across.

Someone let me know if you get answers to your questions that aren't fallacious please and I'll check back in.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Yeah, but you know the complexity needed for life. Somewhere between 250-400 proteins along with a DNA sequence that codes for them all and can interact with them. This isn't even what we have observed, this IS speculation. So going beyond that is even more wishful speculation. But that is what I don't like about both naturalistic views for life's origin and young earth creationism. Both are similar in that there is a story with which the new data must be shoved into. That is why I like the intelligent design theory. They don't say much about what they think happened, but this leaves plenty of room to accommodate new data. It is less dogmatic. 

Also there has been research showing that histone modifications can actually occur in the parent, and it passes it on to the offspring. This is a heritable form of genetic variation that gives the illusion of a changing genome, when in reality it is just different genes being expressed. 

I don't think mutation can account for the genetic complexities we see because given current mutation rates, which are very low, we would need much more time than a few billion years to get where we are. Also when we do see mutations they almost always have no effect. If they do, it's almost always detrimental to the function of the sequence. So relying on extremely rare events to improve the genome seems irrational.

"Given current mutation rates, which are very low"? Dude, we know the average rate of point mutation so well that we actually use it to track mtDNA sequence divergence, among other things. Do you think you're dropping a "knowledge bomb" on the scientific community by declaring that it's too low for a few billion years of evolution to have produced what we see? Come on, man. Do better!

Yes, we've seen that epigenetic outcomes/alterations may be heritable (with bad implications for smokers!), but as you just pointed out, it's a matter of gene expression. That's the answer to the question we were forced to ask when the Human Genome Project revealed we had far fewer genes than we had protein types in our body. Epigenetic expression, especially the heritable components, add a layer of complexity in how the genes are expressed, and thus how the phenotypes are acted upon by Natural Selection. Why you think this means it could not have evolved without magic, I'll likely never understand.

And please, seriously, stop with the "most mutations are bad". We know that. It's one of the first things you'll learn in your evolution class. But they're not all bad, in an evolutionary sense. Some are detrimental and removed from the gene pool by NS. Some are bad but not deleterious to the individual because of compensating factors, and may become "good" genes when environmental or reproductive environments change. Some are entirely neutral, and many of those eventually become useful in later generations (especially in the case of duplication mutations, which we previously discussed), or simply change the way the proteins are manufactured without changing the function thereof. And no matter how bad most mutations are, in a population of bacteria that is literally millions per mL, even a 1% "good mutation" rate would result in 10,000 good mutations in that single drop of water, every generation.

One of the things I remember learning in my evolution course was that every human being has on average ten novel mutations, most of which are in non-coding locations (95% of the genome), and thus unnoticed. Unfortunately, when they're not in those locations they can result in tendencies for cancer and a host of genetic diseases. But they occasionally result in a unique brain like Einstein's (he had mutant brain architecture and an abnormal number of glial cells which support the neural network; our brains are huge consumers of energy, a limiting factor on our ability to grow ever-bigger brains, and he had the ability to make use of his Abby Normal brain because of this), or speed like Usain Bolt, and so on. It is unfortunate that there are more people with Tay-Sachs disease than brains like Einstein's, but that's just how it works.

It does not mean Magic Man in the Sky messed with our DNA.

[robvalue]

Notice how AAA is staying right away from supporting his actual own position, because he realises it's entirely unscientific. Instead he attacks the position of science and reason.

There's no way this guy is a science student. We had this all out before. If he somehow really is, this abandonment of the scientific method when it contradicts fairy tail narratives is going to be a very real hindrance to any scientific career. I'm not kidding. He needs to hear this for his own good.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Notice how AAA is staying right away from supporting his actual own position, because he realises it's entirely unscientific. Instead he attacks the position of science and reason.

There's no way this guy is a science student. We had this all out before. If he somehow really is, this abandonment of the scientific method when it contradicts fairy tail narratives is going to be a very real hindrance to any scientific career. I'm not kidding. He needs to hear this for his own good.

Ask him at which institution (oh, I fucking love that word) he is attending. The US is awash with Xtian colleges where you can be a "biology" student, and then there's these crap-weasels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
who I suspect have been supporting their own drones to infiltrate real science universities. Well there is Michael Behe, who I doubt could even talk to this dude, but would lap up quotes from him like a dog.

[robvalue]

Hehe, yeah.

I mean, this is literally the argument from ignorance. "I don't understand how this can work!"

Clearly. The solution is to go study, not announce it is wrong. Actual study. It's amazing how many theists expect us to give them a full course in evolution plus all the evidence behind it, when they're too lazy to even pick up a book.

What's this guy going to do in the exam?

Question 1: Give a brief overview of the theory of evolution, in 200 words or less. [10 marks]

Answer: It's fake, goddidit.

[Rhondazvous]

What do you mean "we?"

You must first prove the existence of god before you can claim that he did anything. But I see it's to your advantage to put the cart before the horse.

You can't prove anything accept in mathematics. That word doesn't belong in science. We can have evidence that points to a designer to life, but I suspect you'll just push that off as something we don't understand yet and say I'm just doing God of the gaps arguing.

Yu do realize the humongous difference between "can have evidence" and "do have evidence?"

[AAA]

Yeah, but you know the complexity needed for life. Somewhere between 250-400 proteins along with a DNA sequence that codes for them all and can interact with them. This isn't even what we have observed, this IS speculation. So going beyond that is even more wishful speculation. But that is what I don't like about both naturalistic views for life's origin and young earth creationism. Both are similar in that there is a story with which the new data must be shoved into. That is why I like the intelligent design theory. They don't say much about what they think happened, but this leaves plenty of room to accommodate new data. It is less dogmatic. 

Also there has been research showing that histone modifications can actually occur in the parent, and it passes it on to the offspring. This is a heritable form of genetic variation that gives the illusion of a changing genome, when in reality it is just different genes being expressed. 

I don't think mutation can account for the genetic complexities we see because given current mutation rates, which are very low, we would need much more time than a few billion years to get where we are. Also when we do see mutations they almost always have no effect. If they do, it's almost always detrimental to the function of the sequence. So relying on extremely rare events to improve the genome seems irrational.

"Given current mutation rates, which are very low"? Dude, we know the average rate of point mutation so well that we actually use it to track mtDNA sequence divergence, among other things. Do you think you're dropping a "knowledge bomb" on the scientific community by declaring that it's too low for a few billion years of evolution to have produced what we see? Come on, man. Do better!

Yes, we've seen that epigenetic outcomes/alterations may be heritable (with bad implications for smokers!), but as you just pointed out, it's a matter of gene expression. That's the answer to the question we were forced to ask when the Human Genome Project revealed we had far fewer genes than we had protein types in our body. Epigenetic expression, especially the heritable components, add a layer of complexity in how the genes are expressed, and thus how the phenotypes are acted upon by Natural Selection. Why you think this means it could not have evolved without magic, I'll likely never understand.

And please, seriously, stop with the "most mutations are bad". We know that. It's one of the first things you'll learn in your evolution class. But they're not all bad, in an evolutionary sense. Some are detrimental and removed from the gene pool by NS. Some are bad but not deleterious to the individual because of compensating factors, and may become "good" genes when environmental or reproductive environments change. Some are entirely neutral, and many of those eventually become useful in later generations (especially in the case of duplication mutations, which we previously discussed), or simply change the way the proteins are manufactured without changing the function thereof. And no matter how bad most mutations are, in a population of bacteria that is literally millions per mL, even a 1% "good mutation" rate would result in 10,000 good mutations in that single drop of water, every generation.

One of the things I remember learning in my evolution course was that every human being has on average ten novel mutations, most of which are in non-coding locations (95% of the genome), and thus unnoticed. Unfortunately, when they're not in those locations they can result in tendencies for cancer and a host of genetic diseases. But they occasionally result in a unique brain like Einstein's (he had mutant brain architecture and an abnormal number of glial cells which support the neural network; our brains are huge consumers of energy, a limiting factor on our ability to grow ever-bigger brains, and he had the ability to make use of his Abby Normal brain because of this), or speed like Usain Bolt, and so on. It is unfortunate that there are more people with Tay-Sachs disease than brains like Einstein's, but that's just how it works.

It does not mean Magic Man in the Sky messed with our DNA.

It's not new information that mutation rates are too low, but that is always just brushed aside. Also, the greater number of proteins than genes is more due to alternate exon splicing than epigenetic factors (although I suspect we will find that even these two phenomena influence each other). It is another mechanism to control gene expression. 


Also, I never said that all mutations are harmful, you built a straw-man. And I don't think you can say 1% good mutations. That is not likely even close. 

Also just because a mutation occurs in the non-coding region of DNA doesn't mean it won't affect the person. Almost all of that DNA is transcribed, and plays a role in regulation. You change the sequence, you change the ability to bind with specificity, you change the ability to regulate things well.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

It's not new information that mutation rates are too low, but that is always just brushed aside. Also, the greater number of proteins than genes is more due to alternate exon splicing than epigenetic factors (although I suspect we will find that even these two phenomena influence each other). It is another mechanism to control gene expression. 


Also, I never said that all mutations are harmful, you built a straw-man. And I don't think you can say 1% good mutations. That is not likely even close. 

Also just because a mutation occurs in the non-coding region of DNA doesn't mean it won't affect the person. Almost all of that DNA is transcribed, and plays a role in regulation. You change the sequence, you change the ability to bind with specificity, you change the ability to regulate things well.

I realize that my wording may be read to imply that I meant epigenetic expression was the reason behind the difference between protein count and gene count; that's not what I meant to say... only that among the factors that complicated the picture was the recently-verified field of epigenetics, in addition to the splicing variations we knew about already back in 1999 but did not fully realize the significance of before the whole picture was in. I was taking my 300-level genetics course when the HGP published its results... it was a very exciting year, as was my senior year.

There are many forms of transcription and coding methods; I think you're referring to the eukaryotic (and some viruses) process, by which introns are spliced out after being copied. Nevertheless, the majority of intron regions are "place-holders", and the actual sequence of DNA there does not affect the process, meaning that a mutation typically goes unnoticed. Don't be disingenuous when you present these facts; it will harm you in academia. On the other hand, if your goal is to finish college with a biochem degree so you can go on to work at the Creation Institute™, then you're well on your way.

As for the "not enough/no beneficial mutations" meme that various Creationists (oh, I'm sorry, Intelligent Design-ists) have been tirelessly pumping out, it's just wrong. The effect has been well-studied, and continues to be studied. (I recommend the links to other related articles, at the side of that article.) You're right that I picked 1% as a "round number", but that's irrelevant to my point here, as I also picked one million as my number of bacteria in a mL of water, and you should know how ridiculously understated that one is, in nutrient-rich environments where reproduction of bacteria would be occurring. In other words, I used round numbers to give an easy-to-grasp figure, and you muffed it.

So I'll start again. The rate of mutation is roughly one in ten million... so if 99% of those are harmful, and a percent of them are beneficial, then the number of beneficial mutations is one in a billion. Sound fair? Since the number of bacteria in ONE MILLILITER of a rich environment like saliva is 100 million, that means one genuine beneficial mutation in every ten generations. How long does it take to have ten generations in a bacterial colony? Yup!

Even if you change the percent of beneficial mutations a few orders of magnitude up or down, it doesn't change the basic calculus, since I'm talking about one droplet of water.

[AAA]

It's not new information that mutation rates are too low, but that is always just brushed aside. Also, the greater number of proteins than genes is more due to alternate exon splicing than epigenetic factors (although I suspect we will find that even these two phenomena influence each other). It is another mechanism to control gene expression. 


Also, I never said that all mutations are harmful, you built a straw-man. And I don't think you can say 1% good mutations. That is not likely even close. 

Also just because a mutation occurs in the non-coding region of DNA doesn't mean it won't affect the person. Almost all of that DNA is transcribed, and plays a role in regulation. You change the sequence, you change the ability to bind with specificity, you change the ability to regulate things well.

I realize that my wording may be read to imply that I meant epigenetic expression was the reason behind the difference between protein count and gene count; that's not what I meant to say... only that among the factors that complicated the picture was the recently-verified field of epigenetics, in addition to the splicing variations we knew about already back in 1999 but did not fully realize the significance of before the whole picture was in. I was taking my 300-level genetics course when the HGP published its results... it was a very exciting year, as was my senior year.

There are many forms of transcription and coding methods; I think you're referring to the eukaryotic (and some viruses) process, by which introns are spliced out after being copied. Nevertheless, the majority of intron regions are "place-holders", and the actual sequence of DNA there does not affect the process, meaning that a mutation typically goes unnoticed. Don't be disingenuous when you present these facts; it will harm you in academia. On the other hand, if your goal is to finish college with a biochem degree so you can go on to work at the Creation Institute™, then you're well on your way.

As for the "not enough/no beneficial mutations" meme that various Creationists (oh, I'm sorry, Intelligent Design-ists) have been tirelessly pumping out, it's just wrong. The effect has been well-studied, and continues to be studied. (I recommend the links to other related articles, at the side of that article.) You're right that I picked 1% as a "round number", but that's irrelevant to my point here, as I also picked one million as my number of bacteria in a mL of water, and you should know how ridiculously understated that one is, in nutrient-rich environments where reproduction of bacteria would be occurring. In other words, I used round numbers to give an easy-to-grasp figure, and you muffed it.

So I'll start again. The rate of mutation is roughly one in ten million... so if 99% of those are harmful, and a percent of them are beneficial, then the number of beneficial mutations is one in a billion. Sound fair? Since the number of bacteria in ONE MILLILITER of a rich environment like saliva is 100 million, that means one genuine beneficial mutation in every ten generations. How long does it take to have ten generations in a bacterial colony? Yup!

Even if you change the percent of beneficial mutations a few orders of magnitude up or down, it doesn't change the basic calculus, since I'm talking about one droplet of water.

Well introns aren't always placeholders. Many times when they are spliced out, they just get degraded and their parts are reused, but some go on to regulate other DNA sequences. 

I still think that your 99% harmful is too generous, but you're right, if we were looking at more than 1 ml , they might add up.