he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Rumraket said:What the flying fuck?
Do we really need to go on with this discussion? Like, at all?
You should have followed up that sentiment with this:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Rumraket said:What the flying fuck?
Do we really need to go on with this discussion? Like, at all?
Justice Frangipane said:I do believe that the ark would be sufficient to hold a large number frogs if needed. Here is my belief. (yes, belief) God created frogs (among other animals) with DNA laden with possibilities within limits. Quality control limits so to speak, that work in conjunction with natural selection to keep the gene code from mutating to a point where it would kill a species. If 25 frogs (or whatever number would be needed) were made with all the functions of the current 4,740 frogs, they could lose features as they dispersed. Imagine a "super frog" (which really wouldn't need to be all that super at all. But if it had all the features of 10 species that could deteriorated from it by loss of information not gain. (like blind animals found in caves)
[url=http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=155559#p155559 said:Inferno[/url]"]Isn't it obvious? The genome was much larger then, so all mutations are deleterious; the animals were much better in their original form.
Justice Frangipane said:I think that's like saying you believe in mountains but not valleys. While I understand mountains and valleys are not the same thing obviously, I don't know how the one can be had without the other.
No scientist has ever claimed that any life form has ever evolved from a rock, which is a childish fabrication from creationists in order to try to ridicule evolution. However far from having a desired effect, it actually displays a very profound ignorance of the creationists.Justice Frangipane said:Unless you claim theistic evolution, then YES, you believe frogs evolved from a ROCK. (emphasis added)
Then this conversation is over before it even started. I don’t care what you believe, you just asserted without evidence, without justification, A priori, the conclusions that you wanted without ever trying to find out if it is either true or not. All I have to do to counter this is to say, "well I don’t believe that, even if I did It isn't based on anything real". End of conversation.Justice Frangipane said:This is a great question, the original question for which this thread was set up. I do believe that the ark would be sufficient to hold a large number frogs if needed. Here is my belief. (yes, belief) God created frogs (among other animals) with DNA laden with possibilities within limits.
You are asking for it…. Why? Why would mutation kill a species? Isn’t mutations at an individual level, isn’t the “species” just the collection of individuals of a sufficiently close gene pool? And if for instance one organism were to develop a mutation that is detrimental to his life, wouldn’t that individual more than likely die of instead of propagating that mutation? And what stops the existence of beneficial mutations? If such a beneficial mutation were to occur, what would stop it from being spread through the population over successive generations?Justice Frangipane said:Quality control limits so to speak, that work in conjunction with natural selection to keep the gene code from mutating to a point where it would kill a species.
If a frog with a collection of traits A gave an offspring with a collection of traits B which were “inferior” to those of A, what would mechanism would prevent a mutation from an organism with traits B to an organism with traits A?Justice Frangipane said:If 25 frogs (or whatever number would be needed) were made with all the functions of the current 4,740 frogs, they could lose features as they dispersed. Imagine a "super frog" (which really wouldn't need to be all that super at all. But if it had all the features of 10 species that could deteriorated from it by loss of information not gain. (like blind animals found in caves)
No actually, it would be the ideal conditions of getting every single organism on that ark extinct, because for everybody that does not live in the wiffle waffle land should know that heterotrophic organisms can not live in a waste land due to the simple fact that they need to ingest stuff in order to survive, stuff that wouldn't exist if there was such a thing as a world wide flood (not to mention the violations of the laws of physics required for such a flood). Ingest stuff that ultimately would boil down to an autotrophic organism somewhere down the food chain. And frogs are not exactly at the bottom of the food chain, the food that the frogs eat wouldn't have food themselves to survive.Justice Frangipane said:After a world wide flood, the ideal breeding grounds for frogs would be enormous. With many frogs laying from 200 - 2000 eggs a week (some hundreds of thousands from a single individual)
That sure would be a lot of climate change in those 4000 years if it's supposed to produce ~1.2 new species of frog every year. Not to mention that's a lot of fortuitous mutation just so happening to create new frog species through deletions of genes from the superfrog, instead of just killing carriers.Justice Frangipane said:Rapid variations and changes in species would occur due to climate changing needs.
In which case the superfrog ancestor would fare better, having all the necessary adaptations to deal with any predator. Yet we still don't see any remotely supefrog-like frogs.Justice Frangipane said:Further stratifying of the species would happen as more and more predator populations would catch up to that of the frogs.
Eating what?Justice Frangipane said:Frog population unlike human population could grow to hundreds of millions in ONE year. If we started with 25 frogs on Noah's ark, 4000 years ago and had an ideal frog breeding paradise (as a post flood world would be)
It defies everything we know about biology and genetics. Why'd the mutations constantly produce new frog species instead of just preferentially killing carriers? It seems extremely unlikely that mutations would just happen to delete large swathes of genes resulting in specific morphological change, instead of happening to delete or mutate key genes that affect the viability of the frog. And in 4000 years no less.Justice Frangipane said:It is very reasonable to believe that those 25 could easily and realistically turn to billions of frogs in a mere hundred or so years. 3900 years of dna "loaded" frogs that would mutate and lose features during that time to come to a place of 4740 frogs today would be possible.
Define "genetic gain".Justice Frangipane said:Since we observe genetic loss frequently and never (or to not start another rabbit trail, "almost never") observe genetic gain.
It seems to me you're the one postulating the most outrageously unlikely mutational events if you think a small set of genetic superfrogs just so happened to suffer mutations through a few thousand years such that they resulted in viable, highly specifically adapted frogs, instead of just mostly producing dead or misdeveloped organisms.Justice Frangipane said:I believe it is far more probable that this falls further into the nature of science that we see today, instead fighting the balance of mutational probability as proposed by evolutionary biology.
Yes, frogs did not evolve independently multiple times. As far as we know, they're a monophyletic group.Justice Frangipane said:Evolutionist problem number 1. 4,740 frogs from a rock 375 million to 4 billion years ago.
Rumraket said:According to evolution, all frogs would have a last common ancestor which was itself a frog approximately 250 to 265 million years ago. We all know what the evolutionary mechanism is, we know what kinds of testable predictions it makes, we can confirm this by looking at DNA.
The origin of life isn't part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution simply explains how life changes through the evolutionary process over time. But it doesn't say how life came to exist in the first place. We don't know how life originated. So that thing about "from rocks" is a bit of a red herring I hope you can agree.
I'm not asking how you think god created the first pair of frogs, we know you think it was some kind of divine intervention, which you obviously can't prove but have to take on faith. So it wouldn't be fair to ask me to tell you how the first life came to exist, I simply don't know. I hope we can agree to leave the question on the origin of life at that: You believe it was divine intervention and I just don't know, and get back to the post-flood evolution vs creationism question. Fair?
It looks like we agree on the common ancestor of frogs being a frog. =)
Respectfully, that proposition isn't subject to disagreement. It is a fact that the origin of life isn't part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a theory that explains how already existing populations of organisms change through descent with modification due to mutation, genetic drift and natural selection, and tells us how the patterns observed in DNA, the fossil record and with comparative morphology, came about.Justice Frangipane said:While you state that the origins of life are NOT a part of evolution, I would disagree.
That analogy doesn't make any sense. Evolutionary theory simply assumes that some populations of organisms exist, it then explains how change happens over time. It doesn't HAVE to explain the origin of life to explain how life changes over generations. Just like I can give you an account of my life since I was born, without actually telling you or even knowing the specific circumstances of my birth.Justice Frangipane said:I think that's like saying you believe in mountains but not valleys. While I understand mountains and valleys are not the same thing obviously, I don't know how the one can be had without the other.
Logical? Sure, it doesn't commit any immediately obvious logical fallacies. But I'm afraid that's about where the viability of your proposed alternative stops. It postulates some outrageously improbable events, for which we simple have zero evidence. And that's before we consider the ludicrous proposition about how you think the flood was generated by a fucking flash-freezing comet/ice-meteor. Where'd all the water go afterwards?Justice Frangipane said:I hope you find my answer regarding frog speciation to be a logical scientific alternative to your perspective.
Justice Frangipane said:Okay, so your quotes from other creationists have a huge amount of flaw in them and I wouldn't for a second defend that argument.
Fair enough. But I do have to ask, then, if it doesn't seem peculiar to you that some of the most famous professional defenders of your position says such obviously, ludicrously false things?
Yes, it bothers me, but it would be foolish to try and argue from those positions. There are a lot of people out there who don't think. So, it is what it is. It also exists on both sides and what are we gonna do, right?
Justice Frangipane said:With the world changing from a catastrophe the likes of the flood (which I believe was caused initially by an ice meteor strike which would account for how a mammoth could freeze before it rots internally)
Justice Frangipane said:[...]
With the world changing from a catastrophe the likes of the flood (which I believe was caused initially by an ice meteor strike which would account for how a mammoth could freeze before it rots internally)
Gnug215 said:I believe someone has made the calculations for you in a YouTube video. (If anyone can find it, please share the link.)
So just to make sure I've got this right: You don't think there's a problem with the theory of evolution as such, you just believe you've got an even better one?
You seem to imply that you would not have a problem with the possibility of current frog bioderversity evolving in ~260 million years?
Justice Frangipane wrote:
Negative, harmful mutations abound in our world and would be supportive of this theory. http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Most_muta ... re_harmful
Compatible with, not supportive of. Important distinction.
Deleterious mutations are perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution too, so it can't really be said to be evidence of your theory. To do that, you have to be able to say much more specifically how many deleterious mutations should happen on your theory vs how many on the theory of evolution. That's the only way to see whether it supports one theory more than the other.
Justice Frangipane wrote:
After a world wide flood, the ideal breeding grounds for frogs would be enormous.
How do you know?
Why is there no single geological layer containing pretty much everything on the planet, from humans to dinosaurs?
Justice Frangipane said:I appreciate that you all appear to be very passionate about what you're talking about, but please remember, I'm not the enemy. I'm a guy with a different opinion than your own.
I'm going to rescind the super frog theory. You brought up some good points and after considering what you mentioned and doing some more research, I don't think that it is a good theory.
Why wouldn't a post flood world be ideal for frog breeding? plenty of water, lots of bugs, organic debris. I don't see this as an arguable point.
Hydrologic sorting forbids certain things from happening (most of the time) I think there is likely a number of rare exceptions to what is typical. It's also important to note that the Bible says the the water came out of crust of the earth (subcutaneous water chambers) as well as from the sky. With water (likely extremely hot water) killing things on the bottom and land creatures drowning at the top its not going to be simple thing for them to all get to the same place. I think that the fault lines are likely locations for the water to have come out of the earth.
I don't think that the mountains we see today needed to be at their current heights during the flood.
Without land to disrupt the movement of tides, there would likely be a lot more hydrological sorting than we might have originally thought.
It's also important to remember that the buoyancy for different things will have an effect on where it ends up getting buried.
Poly strata fossils would suggest a flood and provide a HUGE problem for million year old strata. The lack of erosion marks between the layers is also a real issue.
Look up the "lost squadron" http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/plane-freed-from-a-glacier-sets-out-for-britain-again/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron
Frogs can also survive a flood just fine. While the whole earth was flooded at one point, it doesn't mean the whole earth was flooded for the whole time. There could easily be parts of the earth that were just flooded during a few crest weeks. There is no reason to assume that some kinds of frogs wouldn't be able to survive on debris mats for a few weeks or months, as well as some that can live in the water just fine. Insects would also be able to survive a flood just fine, so the frogs would not have a short supply of food.
Man has "developed" 300+ varieties of dogs in just about 200 years. The same thing has happened with corn, apples, pigs etc. Climate does that for animals quickly. It's called adapting to the environment. That can only happen on info ALREADY IN the gene code. Cold weather "selects" for dogs with thick fur. It does not CREATE the fur or the gene for thick fur. The gene was there all along.
Why wouldn't a post flood world be ideal for frog breeding? plenty of water, lots of bugs, organic debris. I don't see this as an arguable point.
Saggy skinned frogs live on altitudes as high as 2 km. Not exactly as high as Mt. Everest but still pretty high.Foxcanine1 said:Frogs have a less efficient respiratory system then us and cannot survive in high elevation. So you would need a dramatic drop of those mountains in order for the flood to cover them and for the frogs to survive.
DutchLiam84 said:Saggy skinned frogs live on altitudes as high as 2 km. Not exactly as high as Mt. Everest but still pretty high.Foxcanine1 said:Frogs have a less efficient respiratory system then us and cannot survive in high elevation. So you would need a dramatic drop of those mountains in order for the flood to cover them and for the frogs to survive.
No that doesn't work in your scenario. Each animal carries only two copies of a gene, one it got from its mother and one from its father which may well be different (different versions of a gene are called alleles). The way we breed animals is by artificially selecting out a set of alleles from a gene pool not a single "gene code" (genome). In a healthy population there is lots of variation between individuals - lots of alleles to choose from. But if you reduce a population to just two individuals there is at most four versions of each gene available - not much to select from for adapting to the environment.Justice Frangipane said:Man has "developed" 300+ varieties of dogs in just about 200 years. The same thing has happened with corn, apples, pigs etc. Climate does that for animals quickly. It's called adapting to the environment. That can only happen on info ALREADY IN the gene code. Cold weather "selects" for dogs with thick fur. It does not CREATE the fur or the gene for thick fur. The gene was there all along.
Justice Frangipane said:Man has "developed" 300+ varieties of dogs in just about 200 years. The same thing has happened with corn, apples, pigs etc. Climate does that for animals quickly. It's called adapting to the environment.
Justice Frangipane said:That can only happen on info ALREADY IN the gene code. Cold weather "selects" for dogs with thick fur. It does not CREATE the fur or the gene for thick fur. The gene was there all along.
he_who_is_nobody said:Justice Frangipane said:Man has "developed" 300+ varieties of dogs in just about 200 years. The same thing has happened with corn, apples, pigs etc. Climate does that for animals quickly. It's called adapting to the environment.
That is also called evolution.
Justice Frangipane said:That can only happen on info ALREADY IN the gene code. Cold weather "selects" for dogs with thick fur. It does not CREATE the fur or the gene for thick fur. The gene was there all along.
Everyone seems to be missing a key point. Justice Frangipane is still claiming that beneficial mutations cannot happen, even though AronRa corrected him on this point. Justice Frangipane, read up on mutations, because your ignorance is not an argument.
Claim CB100 and Claim CB101.