> > Dr. Robert Robinson MBBS. DM.(Int. Med.) is a specialist in Internal
> > Medicine trained at the University of The West Indies. He has over ten
> > (10) years experience in the management of patients with obesity and
> > other chronic non-communicable diseases. He is the author of the book
> > "The Sabbatical Diet."http://www.sabbaticaldiet.com

> Such a talented chap, your Doc Robinson. Does he do children's parties
> as well?

> --

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

> > Dr. Robert Robinson MBBS. DM.(Int. Med.) is a specialist in Internal
> > Medicine trained at the University of The West Indies. He has over ten
> > (10) years experience in the management of patients with obesity and
> > other chronic non-communicable diseases. He is the author of the book
> > "The Sabbatical Diet."http://www.sabbaticaldiet.com

> Such a talented chap, your Doc Robinson. Does he do children's parties
> as well?

> --

> "The mind is everything. What you think you become."

> [Buddha]

> Virtual Gods: http://users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

> > On Nov 6, 8:57 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Dr. Robert Robinson MBBS. DM.(Int. Med.) is a specialist in Internal
> > > Medicine trained at the University of The West Indies. He has over ten
> > > (10) years experience in the management of patients with obesity and
> > > other chronic non-communicable diseases. He is the author of the book
> > > "The Sabbatical Diet."http://www.sabbaticaldiet.com

> > Such a talented chap, your Doc Robinson. Does he do children's parties
> > as well?

> Maybe Reasonable and Doc Robinson are one and the same person?

> Bullshit. Scientists' careers are made by disproving existing
> theories. Name any famous scientist. Chances are they're famous
> because they overturned, disproved, or upset some strongly held notion
> of reality. Albert Einstein is perhaps the most famous scientist of
> the twentieth century and he's famous for completely throwing
> everything we thought we know about time, space and gravity out the
> window.

> Scientists are, by far, not fearful of discrimination. Rather they
> invite it.

> Take the Bohr-Einstein Debates about quantum mechanics. Two groups of
> scientific giants going head to head, publicly, about the fundamental
> nature of reality. These debates did wonders for the advancement of
> science.

> People that think that scientists are bullied into touting some
> mainstream agenda simply have no idea what they're talking about.

> Scientists are well aware of what the actual problems with any given
> scientific theory. Many accolades are waiting for the person that can
> solve them.

> Please, educate yourself - you aren't going to fool anyone here.

> > On Nov 3, 3:32 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > But the functional mutation rate is NOT 10^-74! I mean you are not
> > > addressing the problem with your argument at all. You are claiming
> > > that Robinson had a good mathematical model and I am saying if you
> > > accept that he did then your argument still does not hold up because
> > > you are using numbers that are incorrect.

> > > On Nov 3, 11:15 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Sebastian give it up. The bacterial colony Dr. Robinson used is
> > > > enormously large i.e. The entire earth surface extending to outer
> > > > space. The mutation rate he used is greater than theoretically
> > > > possible. i.e. every division of every bacteria in the colony at the
> > > > maximum rate of 150 mutation per division. The time he used include
> > > > every moment of earth history. i.e. from the beginning of the earth
> > > > history. Yet this process cannot produce mathematically one functional
> > > > 150 amino acid protein (a small protein molecule) by random mutation.
> > > > You need to produce over 25,000 larger protein of over 1000 amino
> > > > acids to give rise to a human. The Evolution theory is not viable.
> > > > Give it up Sebastian. This is a CHECKMATE.

> > > > On Nov 3, 7:39 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > I also posted two other articles that find much higher functional
> > > > > mutation rates than the one quoted by you. If you search the
> > > > > scientific literature you will find that the functional mutation rates
> > > > > are slowly becoming a popular topic of research in fundamental
> > > > > evolutionary theory. However, your number is vastly underestimated.

> > > > > On Nov 2, 7:07 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > The reference you provided pointed out that random mutation is the
> > > > > > ultimate source of genetic variation. (see link and quotation you
> > > > > > provided below)

> > > > > >http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/ICchance.shtml

> > > > > > Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-
> > > > > > random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source
> > > > > > of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which
> > > > > > some variants survive and others do not, is not random.

> > > > > > So random mutation is the primary cause for various genetic
> > > > > > combination. Mutations occurs during cell divisions and is past on to
> > > > > > the next generation. For every 10 74 combination for a 150 genes you
> > > > > > will have a potential functional protein form. If this protein gives
> > > > > > the organism an advantage then natural selection will allow for this
> > > > > > variant to survive.
> > > > > > The article present a massive, dense, unrealistic bacterial colony in
> > > > > > size that all the bacteria are mutating this 150 gene randomly at the
> > > > > > maximum rate possible ( 150 genes per cell division) continuously from
> > > > > > the time the earth was formed. The total permutation that could occur
> > > > > > during this time was significantly less than 10 74 permutations.
> > > > > > The obvious conclusion then is these variations did not occur from
> > > > > > random mutation. Therefore random mutation is not the ultimate source
> > > > > > for genetic variation. But, Evolution is based on random mutation.( as
> > > > > > stated by your reference above) Therefore, Evolution is not the basis
> > > > > > for genetic variation.. This is a simply mathematical conclusion.
> > > > > > Therefore evolution is not a viable theory.
> > > > > > Look, you will never find TRUTH if you are not HONEST with the facts.
> > > > > > I use to be a believer in evolution. With this kind of evidence I
> > > > > > would be a fool to continue believing in it. If you understand
> > > > > > mathematics and still believe in evolution with this information. You
> > > > > > are a damn ....  I don't call people fools period.

> > > > > > On Nov 2, 6:22 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > Your functional mutation rate is 10^-74, and that is orders of
> > > > > > > magnitude off. Again, I can only ask you to check the articles I
> > > > > > > posted. If you do not want to read and learn, then it is you who
> > > > > > > refuses to attempt to decipher the laws of nature.

> > > > > > > On Oct 28, 11:50 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation is NOT 1 x 10-74. This is the amount
> > > > > > > > of mutations that must take place to meet the permutation requirement
> > > > > > > > so  that a 150 gene can produce a functional protein.

> > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation per mm-3 per year is

> > > > > > > > 4 x 10 13 x 150 x 5.37 x 10 5 = 3.2 x 10-21 mutations /per mm-3/per
> > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > (number of bacteria per mm-3 x number of bacterial mutation per cell
> > > > > > > > division x number of division per year)

> > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 4:19 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > You claimed that evolution was an unsubstantiated theory, I showed you
> > > > > > > > > that you were wrong and now you accept evolution. You claimed that
> > > > > > > > > mutation rates were on the order of 1 x 10-74, then I showed you that
> > > > > > > > > you were wrong again, they are more on the order of 1 x 10-3. Then you
> > > > > > > > > claimed that mutations only works through base pair deletion, and that
> > > > > > > > > all the genes needed for life would have to have existed at the
> > > > > > > > > outset; I showed you that new genes are created and you now agree that
> > > > > > > > > mutation can give rise to increased genetic material.

> > > > > > > > > Now you claim that there is not enough time in history for evolution
> > > > > > > > > to explain the diversity of creatures that exist... but you have no
> > > > > > > > > evidence to back up that claim. You're guessing.

> > > > > > > > > Try reading this:http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/start.shtml
> > > > > > > > > then get back to me.

> > > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 6:50 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > Mutation can give rise to increased genetic material. True. The
> > > > > > > > > > problem is that there is not enough time in history for it to do so
> > > > > > > > > > and explain the diversity of creatures that now exist.

> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 3:43 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 26, 9:42 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > Daniel I believe bacteria can develop new traits in a lab and
> > > > > > > > > > > > outside a lab. Period.

> > > > > > > > > > > Then you believe in evolution. Period.

> > > > > > > > > > > > So to tell me that some scientist was able to demonstrate this is
> > > > > > > > > > > > consistent with what I believe. Now Micheal Behe examined the case
> > > > > > > > > > > > you presented and showed that this form of mutation is atypical.
> > > > > > > > > > > > How is it atypical? The bacteria already had the gene to
> > > > > > > > > > > > metabolize citrate. By deleting some of the other gene that
> > > > > > > > > > > > inhibited the expression of this gene the bacteria could change
> > > > > > > > > > > > its trait. So i will agree with you that if all the genes that are
> > > > > > > > > > > > needed for life existed at the start on the

> Most scientists are in the business of regurgitating the same old same
> old an infinitem and ad nauseum.

> > Scientists are, by far, not fearful of discrimination. Rather they
> > invite it.

> I suggest you spend some time with some real scientists sometime.

> > Take the Bohr-Einstein Debates about quantum mechanics. Two groups of
> > scientific giants going head to head, publicly, about the fundamental
> > nature of reality. These debates did wonders for the advancement of
> > science.

> > People that think that scientists are bullied into touting some
> > mainstream agenda simply have no idea what they're talking about.

> No, only 99% of the time.

> > Zero. Science thrives on conflict and the overturning of theories. The
> > more well established the theory, the better it is when it is upset.
> > When Newton came along, scientists thought that our understanding of
> > the universe was almost complete. Then came Einstein. Far from being
> > fearful of discrimination, or risking his career by going public, he
> > published the problems (and his solutions) and became one of the most
> > famous scientists of all time.

> Take you raggety arse into a Science department of a University
> sometime and observe the pale shadows of autistic anoraks that dwell
> inside the dusty darkened corridors.

> > Scientists are well aware of what the actual problems with any given
> > scientific theory. Many accolades are waiting for the person that can
> > solve them.

> > Please, educate yourself - you aren't going to fool anyone here.

> > > On Nov 3, 3:32 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > But the functional mutation rate is NOT 10^-74! I mean you are not
> > > > addressing the problem with your argument at all. You are claiming
> > > > that Robinson had a good mathematical model and I am saying if you
> > > > accept that he did then your argument still does not hold up because
> > > > you are using numbers that are incorrect.

> > > > On Nov 3, 11:15 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Sebastian give it up. The bacterial colony Dr. Robinson used is
> > > > > enormously large i.e. The entire earth surface extending to outer
> > > > > space. The mutation rate he used is greater than theoretically
> > > > > possible. i.e. every division of every bacteria in the colony at the
> > > > > maximum rate of 150 mutation per division. The time he used include
> > > > > every moment of earth history. i.e. from the beginning of the earth
> > > > > history. Yet this process cannot produce mathematically one functional
> > > > > 150 amino acid protein (a small protein molecule) by random mutation.
> > > > > You need to produce over 25,000 larger protein of over 1000 amino
> > > > > acids to give rise to a human. The Evolution theory is not viable.
> > > > > Give it up Sebastian. This is a CHECKMATE.

> > > > > On Nov 3, 7:39 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > I also posted two other articles that find much higher functional
> > > > > > mutation rates than the one quoted by you. If you search the
> > > > > > scientific literature you will find that the functional mutation rates
> > > > > > are slowly becoming a popular topic of research in fundamental
> > > > > > evolutionary theory. However, your number is vastly underestimated.

> > > > > > On Nov 2, 7:07 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > The reference you provided pointed out that random mutation is the
> > > > > > > ultimate source of genetic variation. (see link and quotation you
> > > > > > > provided below)

> > > > > > >http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/ICchance.shtml

> > > > > > > Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-
> > > > > > > random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source
> > > > > > > of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which
> > > > > > > some variants survive and others do not, is not random.

> > > > > > > So random mutation is the primary cause for various genetic
> > > > > > > combination. Mutations occurs during cell divisions and is past on to
> > > > > > > the next generation. For every 10 74 combination for a 150 genes you
> > > > > > > will have a potential functional protein form. If this protein gives
> > > > > > > the organism an advantage then natural selection will allow for this
> > > > > > > variant to survive.
> > > > > > > The article present a massive, dense, unrealistic bacterial colony in
> > > > > > > size that all the bacteria are mutating this 150 gene randomly at the
> > > > > > > maximum rate possible ( 150 genes per cell division) continuously from
> > > > > > > the time the earth was formed. The total permutation that could occur
> > > > > > > during this time was significantly less than 10 74 permutations.
> > > > > > > The obvious conclusion then is these variations did not occur from
> > > > > > > random mutation. Therefore random mutation is not the ultimate source
> > > > > > > for genetic variation. But, Evolution is based on random mutation.( as
> > > > > > > stated by your reference above) Therefore, Evolution is not the basis
> > > > > > > for genetic variation.. This is a simply mathematical conclusion.
> > > > > > > Therefore evolution is not a viable theory.
> > > > > > > Look, you will never find TRUTH if you are not HONEST with the facts.
> > > > > > > I use to be a believer in evolution. With this kind of evidence I
> > > > > > > would be a fool to continue believing in it. If you understand
> > > > > > > mathematics and still believe in evolution with this information. You
> > > > > > > are a damn ....  I don't call people fools period.

> > > > > > > On Nov 2, 6:22 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > Your functional mutation rate is 10^-74, and that is orders of
> > > > > > > > magnitude off. Again, I can only ask you to check the articles I
> > > > > > > > posted. If you do not want to read and learn, then it is you who
> > > > > > > > refuses to attempt to decipher the laws of nature.

> > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 11:50 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation is NOT 1 x 10-74. This is the amount
> > > > > > > > > of mutations that must take place to meet the permutation requirement
> > > > > > > > > so  that a 150 gene can produce a functional protein.

> > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation per mm-3 per year is

> > > > > > > > > 4 x 10 13 x 150 x 5.37 x 10 5 = 3.2 x 10-21 mutations /per mm-3/per
> > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > (number of bacteria per mm-3 x number of bacterial mutation per cell
> > > > > > > > > division x number of division per year)

> > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 4:19 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > You claimed that evolution was an unsubstantiated theory, I showed you
> > > > > > > > > > that you were wrong and now you accept evolution. You claimed that
> > > > > > > > > > mutation rates were on the order of 1 x 10-74, then I showed you that
> > > > > > > > > > you were wrong again, they are more on the order of 1 x 10-3. Then you
> > > > > > > > > > claimed that mutations only works through base pair deletion, and that
> > > > > > > > > > all the genes needed for life would have to have existed at the
> > > > > > > > > > outset; I showed you that new genes are created and you now agree that
> > > > > > > > > > mutation can give rise to increased genetic material.

> > > > > > > > > > Now you claim that there is not enough time in history for evolution
> > > > > > > > > > to explain the diversity of creatures that exist... but you have no
> > > > > > > > > > evidence to back up that claim. You're guessing.

> > > > > > > > > > Try reading this:http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/start.shtml
> > > > > > > > > > then get back to me.

> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 6:50 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > Mutation can give rise to increased genetic material. True. The
> > > > > > > > > > > problem is that there is not enough time in history for it to do so
> > > > > > > > > > > and explain the diversity of creatures that now exist.

> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 3:43 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 26, 9:42 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Daniel I believe bacteria can develop new traits in a lab and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > outside a lab. Period.

> > > Bullshit. Scientists' careers are made by disproving existing
> > > theories. Name any famous scientist. Chances are they're famous
> > > because they overturned, disproved, or upset some strongly held notion
> > > of reality. Albert Einstein is perhaps the most famous scientist of
> > > the twentieth century and he's famous for completely throwing
> > > everything we thought we know about time, space and gravity out the
> > > window.

> > Most scientists are in the business of regurgitating the same old same
> > old an infinitem and ad nauseum.

> Consequently, most scientist's names are unknown.

> > It is a extremely rare event for
> > anyone to make significant steps in science.

> Ok. I fail to see what this has to do with my point that advances in
> science are made by challenging, updating, and refuting the status
> quo.

> > In addition almost never
> > does anyone throw out "everything we know".

> Interesting. Did you not read the rest of my sentence? Because the
> rest of that statement is important and if you wish to represent my
> position accurately, and respond to the points I'm actually making,
> then you should include it.

> > ALL scientists including
> > Einstein build on others' work. Like Newton said he was standing on
> > the shoulders of giants.

> > > Scientists are, by far, not fearful of discrimination. Rather they
> > > invite it.

> > I suggest you spend some time with some real scientists sometime.

> > > Take the Bohr-Einstein Debates about quantum mechanics. Two groups of
> > > scientific giants going head to head, publicly, about the fundamental
> > > nature of reality. These debates did wonders for the advancement of
> > > science.

> > > People that think that scientists are bullied into touting some
> > > mainstream agenda simply have no idea what they're talking about.

> > No, only 99% of the time.

> > > Zero. Science thrives on conflict and the overturning of theories. The
> > > more well established the theory, the better it is when it is upset.
> > > When Newton came along, scientists thought that our understanding of
> > > the universe was almost complete. Then came Einstein. Far from being
> > > fearful of discrimination, or risking his career by going public, he
> > > published the problems (and his solutions) and became one of the most
> > > famous scientists of all time.

> > Take you raggety arse into a Science department of a University
> > sometime and observe the pale shadows of autistic anoraks that dwell
> > inside the dusty darkened corridors.

> > > Scientists are well aware of what the actual problems with any given
> > > scientific theory. Many accolades are waiting for the person that can
> > > solve them.

> > > Please, educate yourself - you aren't going to fool anyone here.

> > > > On Nov 3, 3:32 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > But the functional mutation rate is NOT 10^-74! I mean you are not
> > > > > addressing the problem with your argument at all. You are claiming
> > > > > that Robinson had a good mathematical model and I am saying if you
> > > > > accept that he did then your argument still does not hold up because
> > > > > you are using numbers that are incorrect.

> > > > > On Nov 3, 11:15 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Sebastian give it up. The bacterial colony Dr. Robinson used is
> > > > > > enormously large i.e. The entire earth surface extending to outer
> > > > > > space. The mutation rate he used is greater than theoretically
> > > > > > possible. i.e. every division of every bacteria in the colony at the
> > > > > > maximum rate of 150 mutation per division. The time he used include
> > > > > > every moment of earth history. i.e. from the beginning of the earth
> > > > > > history. Yet this process cannot produce mathematically one functional
> > > > > > 150 amino acid protein (a small protein molecule) by random mutation.
> > > > > > You need to produce over 25,000 larger protein of over 1000 amino
> > > > > > acids to give rise to a human. The Evolution theory is not viable.
> > > > > > Give it up Sebastian. This is a CHECKMATE.

> > > > > > On Nov 3, 7:39 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > I also posted two other articles that find much higher functional
> > > > > > > mutation rates than the one quoted by you. If you search the
> > > > > > > scientific literature you will find that the functional mutation rates
> > > > > > > are slowly becoming a popular topic of research in fundamental
> > > > > > > evolutionary theory. However, your number is vastly underestimated.

> > > > > > > On Nov 2, 7:07 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > The reference you provided pointed out that random mutation is the
> > > > > > > > ultimate source of genetic variation. (see link and quotation you
> > > > > > > > provided below)

> > > > > > > >http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/ICchance.shtml

> > > > > > > > Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-
> > > > > > > > random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source
> > > > > > > > of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which
> > > > > > > > some variants survive and others do not, is not random.

> > > > > > > > So random mutation is the primary cause for various genetic
> > > > > > > > combination. Mutations occurs during cell divisions and is past on to
> > > > > > > > the next generation. For every 10 74 combination for a 150 genes you
> > > > > > > > will have a potential functional protein form. If this protein gives
> > > > > > > > the organism an advantage then natural selection will allow for this
> > > > > > > > variant to survive.
> > > > > > > > The article present a massive, dense, unrealistic bacterial colony in
> > > > > > > > size that all the bacteria are mutating this 150 gene randomly at the
> > > > > > > > maximum rate possible ( 150 genes per cell division) continuously from
> > > > > > > > the time the earth was formed. The total permutation that could occur
> > > > > > > > during this time was significantly less than 10 74 permutations.
> > > > > > > > The obvious conclusion then is these variations did not occur from
> > > > > > > > random mutation. Therefore random mutation is not the ultimate source
> > > > > > > > for genetic variation. But, Evolution is based on random mutation.( as
> > > > > > > > stated by your reference above) Therefore, Evolution is not the basis
> > > > > > > > for genetic variation.. This is a simply mathematical conclusion.
> > > > > > > > Therefore evolution is not a viable theory.
> > > > > > > > Look, you will never find TRUTH if you are not HONEST with the facts.
> > > > > > > > I use to be a believer in evolution. With this kind of evidence I
> > > > > > > > would be a fool to continue believing in it. If you understand
> > > > > > > > mathematics and still believe in evolution with this information. You
> > > > > > > > are a damn ....  I don't call people fools period.

> > > > > > > > On Nov 2, 6:22 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > Your functional mutation rate is 10^-74, and that is orders of
> > > > > > > > > magnitude off. Again, I can only ask you to check the articles I
> > > > > > > > > posted. If you do not want to read and learn, then it is you who
> > > > > > > > > refuses to attempt to decipher the laws of nature.

> > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 11:50 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation is NOT 1 x 10-74. This is the amount
> > > > > > > > > > of mutations that must take place to meet the permutation requirement
> > > > > > > > > > so  that a 150 gene can produce a functional protein.

> > > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation per mm-3 per year is

> > > > > > > > > > 4 x 10 13 x 150 x 5.37 x 10 5 = 3.2 x 10-21 mutations /per mm-3/per
> > > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > > (number of bacteria per mm-3 x number of bacterial mutation per cell
> > > > > > > > > > division x number of division per year)

> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 4:19 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > You claimed that evolution was an unsubstantiated theory, I showed you
> > > > > > > > > > > that you were wrong and now you accept evolution. You claimed that
> > > > > > > > > > > mutation rates were on the order of 1 x 10-74, then I showed you that
> > > > > > > > > > > you were wrong again, they are more on the order of 1 x 10-3. Then you
> > > > > > > > > > > claimed that

> Genesis 1:24-25

> And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to
> their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild
> animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

> The Conclusion of the Matter

> http://ezinearticles.com/?Evolution---The-Unsubstantiated-Theory&id=3...

> Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

> Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God
> and keep his commandments,
> for this is the whole duty of man.
> For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden
> thing, whether it is good or evil.

> Think HONESTLY and you will find the TRUTH.

> Genesis 1:24-25

> And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to
> their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild
> animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild
> animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their
> kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to
> their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

> The Conclusion of the Matter

> http://ezinearticles.com/?Evolution---The-Unsubstantiated-Theory&id=3...

> Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

> Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God
> and keep his commandments,
> for this is the whole duty of man.
> For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden
> thing, whether it is good or evil.

> Think HONESTLY and you will find the TRUTH.

> Reasonable

> On Nov 7, 3:31 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Nov 7, 12:15 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > Bullshit. Scientists' careers are made by disproving existing
> > > > theories. Name any famous scientist. Chances are they're famous
> > > > because they overturned, disproved, or upset some strongly held notion
> > > > of reality. Albert Einstein is perhaps the most famous scientist of
> > > > the twentieth century and he's famous for completely throwing
> > > > everything we thought we know about time, space and gravity out the
> > > > window.

> > > Most scientists are in the business of regurgitating the same old same
> > > old an infinitem and ad nauseum.

> > Consequently, most scientist's names are unknown.

> > > It is a extremely rare event for
> > > anyone to make significant steps in science.

> > Ok. I fail to see what this has to do with my point that advances in
> > science are made by challenging, updating, and refuting the status
> > quo.

> > > In addition almost never
> > > does anyone throw out "everything we know".

> > Interesting. Did you not read the rest of my sentence? Because the
> > rest of that statement is important and if you wish to represent my
> > position accurately, and respond to the points I'm actually making,
> > then you should include it.

> > > ALL scientists including
> > > Einstein build on others' work. Like Newton said he was standing on
> > > the shoulders of giants.

> > > > Scientists are, by far, not fearful of discrimination. Rather they
> > > > invite it.

> > > I suggest you spend some time with some real scientists sometime.

> > > > Take the Bohr-Einstein Debates about quantum mechanics. Two groups of
> > > > scientific giants going head to head, publicly, about the fundamental
> > > > nature of reality. These debates did wonders for the advancement of
> > > > science.

> > > > People that think that scientists are bullied into touting some
> > > > mainstream agenda simply have no idea what they're talking about.

> > > No, only 99% of the time.

> > > > Zero. Science thrives on conflict and the overturning of theories. The
> > > > more well established the theory, the better it is when it is upset.
> > > > When Newton came along, scientists thought that our understanding of
> > > > the universe was almost complete. Then came Einstein. Far from being
> > > > fearful of discrimination, or risking his career by going public, he
> > > > published the problems (and his solutions) and became one of the most
> > > > famous scientists of all time.

> > > Take you raggety arse into a Science department of a University
> > > sometime and observe the pale shadows of autistic anoraks that dwell
> > > inside the dusty darkened corridors.

> > > > Scientists are well aware of what the actual problems with any given
> > > > scientific theory. Many accolades are waiting for the person that can
> > > > solve them.

> > > > Please, educate yourself - you aren't going to fool anyone here.

> > > > > On Nov 3, 3:32 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > But the functional mutation rate is NOT 10^-74! I mean you are not
> > > > > > addressing the problem with your argument at all. You are claiming
> > > > > > that Robinson had a good mathematical model and I am saying if you
> > > > > > accept that he did then your argument still does not hold up because
> > > > > > you are using numbers that are incorrect.

> > > > > > On Nov 3, 11:15 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > Sebastian give it up. The bacterial colony Dr. Robinson used is
> > > > > > > enormously large i.e. The entire earth surface extending to outer
> > > > > > > space. The mutation rate he used is greater than theoretically
> > > > > > > possible. i.e. every division of every bacteria in the colony at the
> > > > > > > maximum rate of 150 mutation per division. The time he used include
> > > > > > > every moment of earth history. i.e. from the beginning of the earth
> > > > > > > history. Yet this process cannot produce mathematically one functional
> > > > > > > 150 amino acid protein (a small protein molecule) by random mutation.
> > > > > > > You need to produce over 25,000 larger protein of over 1000 amino
> > > > > > > acids to give rise to a human. The Evolution theory is not viable.
> > > > > > > Give it up Sebastian. This is a CHECKMATE.

> > > > > > > On Nov 3, 7:39 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > I also posted two other articles that find much higher functional
> > > > > > > > mutation rates than the one quoted by you. If you search the
> > > > > > > > scientific literature you will find that the functional mutation rates
> > > > > > > > are slowly becoming a popular topic of research in fundamental
> > > > > > > > evolutionary theory. However, your number is vastly underestimated.

> > > > > > > > On Nov 2, 7:07 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > The reference you provided pointed out that random mutation is the
> > > > > > > > > ultimate source of genetic variation. (see link and quotation you
> > > > > > > > > provided below)

> > > > > > > > >http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/ICchance.shtml

> > > > > > > > > Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-
> > > > > > > > > random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source
> > > > > > > > > of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which
> > > > > > > > > some variants survive and others do not, is not random.

> > > > > > > > > So random mutation is the primary cause for various genetic
> > > > > > > > > combination. Mutations occurs during cell divisions and is past on to
> > > > > > > > > the next generation. For every 10 74 combination for a 150 genes you
> > > > > > > > > will have a potential functional protein form. If this protein gives
> > > > > > > > > the organism an advantage then natural selection will allow for this
> > > > > > > > > variant to survive.
> > > > > > > > > The article present a massive, dense, unrealistic bacterial colony in
> > > > > > > > > size that all the bacteria are mutating this 150 gene randomly at the
> > > > > > > > > maximum rate possible ( 150 genes per cell division) continuously from
> > > > > > > > > the time the earth was formed. The total permutation that could occur
> > > > > > > > > during this time was significantly less than 10 74 permutations.
> > > > > > > > > The obvious conclusion then is these variations did not occur from
> > > > > > > > > random mutation. Therefore random mutation is not the ultimate source
> > > > > > > > > for genetic variation. But, Evolution is based on random mutation.( as
> > > > > > > > > stated by your reference above) Therefore, Evolution is not the basis
> > > > > > > > > for genetic variation.. This is a simply mathematical conclusion.
> > > > > > > > > Therefore evolution is not a viable theory.
> > > > > > > > > Look, you will never find TRUTH if you are not HONEST with the facts.
> > > > > > > > > I use to be a believer in evolution. With this kind of evidence I
> > > > > > > > > would be a fool to continue believing in it. If you understand
> > > > > > > > > mathematics and still believe in evolution with this information. You
> > > > > > > > > are a damn ....  I don't call people fools period.

> > > > > > > > > On Nov 2, 6:22 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > Your functional mutation rate is 10^-74, and that is orders of
> > > > > > > > > > magnitude off. Again, I can only ask you to check the articles I
> > > > > > > > > > posted. If you do not want to read and learn, then it is you who
> > > > > > > > > > refuses to attempt to decipher the laws of nature.

> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 11:50 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation is NOT 1 x 10-74. This is the amount
> > > > > > > > > > > of mutations that must take place to meet the permutation requirement
> > > > > > > > > > > so  that a 150 gene can produce a functional protein.

> > > > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation per mm-3 per year is

> > > > > > > > > > > 4 x 10 13 x 150 x 5.37 x 10 5 = 3.2 x 10-21 mutations /per mm-3/per
> > > > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > > > (number of bacteria per mm-3 x number of bacterial mutation per cell
> > > > > > > > > > > division x number of division per year)

> > > Bullshit. Scientists' careers are made by disproving existing
> > > theories. Name any famous scientist. Chances are they're famous
> > > because they overturned, disproved, or upset some strongly held notion
> > > of reality. Albert Einstein is perhaps the most famous scientist of
> > > the twentieth century and he's famous for completely throwing
> > > everything we thought we know about time, space and gravity out the
> > > window.

> > Most scientists are in the business of regurgitating the same old same
> > old an infinitem and ad nauseum.

> Consequently, most scientist's names are unknown.

> > It is a extremely rare event for
> > anyone to make significant steps in science.

> Ok. I fail to see what this has to do with my point that advances in
> science are made by challenging, updating, and refuting the status
> quo.

> > In addition almost never
> > does anyone throw out "everything we know".

> Interesting. Did you not read the rest of my sentence? Because the
> rest of that statement is important and if you wish to represent my
> position accurately, and respond to the points I'm actually making,
> then you should include it.

> > ALL scientists including
> > Einstein build on others' work. Like Newton said he was standing on
> > the shoulders of giants.

> > > Scientists are, by far, not fearful of discrimination. Rather they
> > > invite it.

> > I suggest you spend some time with some real scientists sometime.

> > > Take the Bohr-Einstein Debates about quantum mechanics. Two groups of
> > > scientific giants going head to head, publicly, about the fundamental
> > > nature of reality. These debates did wonders for the advancement of
> > > science.

> > > People that think that scientists are bullied into touting some
> > > mainstream agenda simply have no idea what they're talking about.

> > No, only 99% of the time.

> > > Zero. Science thrives on conflict and the overturning of theories. The
> > > more well established the theory, the better it is when it is upset.
> > > When Newton came along, scientists thought that our understanding of
> > > the universe was almost complete. Then came Einstein. Far from being
> > > fearful of discrimination, or risking his career by going public, he
> > > published the problems (and his solutions) and became one of the most
> > > famous scientists of all time.

> > Take you raggety arse into a Science department of a University
> > sometime and observe the pale shadows of autistic anoraks that dwell
> > inside the dusty darkened corridors.

> > > Scientists are well aware of what the actual problems with any given
> > > scientific theory. Many accolades are waiting for the person that can
> > > solve them.

> > > Please, educate yourself - you aren't going to fool anyone here.

> > > > On Nov 3, 3:32 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > But the functional mutation rate is NOT 10^-74! I mean you are not
> > > > > addressing the problem with your argument at all. You are claiming
> > > > > that Robinson had a good mathematical model and I am saying if you
> > > > > accept that he did then your argument still does not hold up because
> > > > > you are using numbers that are incorrect.

> > > > > On Nov 3, 11:15 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Sebastian give it up. The bacterial colony Dr. Robinson used is
> > > > > > enormously large i.e. The entire earth surface extending to outer
> > > > > > space. The mutation rate he used is greater than theoretically
> > > > > > possible. i.e. every division of every bacteria in the colony at the
> > > > > > maximum rate of 150 mutation per division. The time he used include
> > > > > > every moment of earth history. i.e. from the beginning of the earth
> > > > > > history. Yet this process cannot produce mathematically one functional
> > > > > > 150 amino acid protein (a small protein molecule) by random mutation.
> > > > > > You need to produce over 25,000 larger protein of over 1000 amino
> > > > > > acids to give rise to a human. The Evolution theory is not viable.
> > > > > > Give it up Sebastian. This is a CHECKMATE.

> > > > > > On Nov 3, 7:39 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > I also posted two other articles that find much higher functional
> > > > > > > mutation rates than the one quoted by you. If you search the
> > > > > > > scientific literature you will find that the functional mutation rates
> > > > > > > are slowly becoming a popular topic of research in fundamental
> > > > > > > evolutionary theory. However, your number is vastly underestimated.

> > > > > > > On Nov 2, 7:07 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > The reference you provided pointed out that random mutation is the
> > > > > > > > ultimate source of genetic variation. (see link and quotation you
> > > > > > > > provided below)

> > > > > > > >http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/ICchance.shtml

> > > > > > > > Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-
> > > > > > > > random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source
> > > > > > > > of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which
> > > > > > > > some variants survive and others do not, is not random.

> > > > > > > > So random mutation is the primary cause for various genetic
> > > > > > > > combination. Mutations occurs during cell divisions and is past on to
> > > > > > > > the next generation. For every 10 74 combination for a 150 genes you
> > > > > > > > will have a potential functional protein form. If this protein gives
> > > > > > > > the organism an advantage then natural selection will allow for this
> > > > > > > > variant to survive.
> > > > > > > > The article present a massive, dense, unrealistic bacterial colony in
> > > > > > > > size that all the bacteria are mutating this 150 gene randomly at the
> > > > > > > > maximum rate possible ( 150 genes per cell division) continuously from
> > > > > > > > the time the earth was formed. The total permutation that could occur
> > > > > > > > during this time was significantly less than 10 74 permutations.
> > > > > > > > The obvious conclusion then is these variations did not occur from
> > > > > > > > random mutation. Therefore random mutation is not the ultimate source
> > > > > > > > for genetic variation. But, Evolution is based on random mutation.( as
> > > > > > > > stated by your reference above) Therefore, Evolution is not the basis
> > > > > > > > for genetic variation.. This is a simply mathematical conclusion.
> > > > > > > > Therefore evolution is not a viable theory.
> > > > > > > > Look, you will never find TRUTH if you are not HONEST with the facts.
> > > > > > > > I use to be a believer in evolution. With this kind of evidence I
> > > > > > > > would be a fool to continue believing in it. If you understand
> > > > > > > > mathematics and still believe in evolution with this information. You
> > > > > > > > are a damn ....  I don't call people fools period.

> > > > > > > > On Nov 2, 6:22 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > Your functional mutation rate is 10^-74, and that is orders of
> > > > > > > > > magnitude off. Again, I can only ask you to check the articles I
> > > > > > > > > posted. If you do not want to read and learn, then it is you who
> > > > > > > > > refuses to attempt to decipher the laws of nature.

> > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 11:50 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation is NOT 1 x 10-74. This is the amount
> > > > > > > > > > of mutations that must take place to meet the permutation requirement
> > > > > > > > > > so  that a 150 gene can produce a functional protein.

> > > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation per mm-3 per year is

> > > > > > > > > > 4 x 10 13 x 150 x 5.37 x 10 5 = 3.2 x 10-21 mutations /per mm-3/per
> > > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > > (number of bacteria per mm-3 x number of bacterial mutation per cell
> > > > > > > > > > division x number of division per year)

> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 4:19 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > You claimed that evolution was an unsubstantiated theory, I showed you
> > > > > > > > > > > that you were wrong and now you accept evolution. You claimed that
> > > > > > > > > > > mutation rates were on the order of 1 x 10-74, then I showed you that
> > > > > > > > > > > you were wrong again, they are more on the order of 1 x 10-3. Then you
> > > > > > > > > > > claimed that mutations only works through base pair deletion, and that
> > > > > > > > > > > all the genes needed for life would have to have existed at the
> > > > > > > > > > > outset; I showed you that new genes are created and you now agree that
> > > > > > > > > > > mutation can give rise to increased genetic material.

> > > > > > > > > > > Now you claim that there is not enough time in history for evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > to explain the diversity of creatures that exist... but you have no
> > > > > > > > > > > evidence to back up that claim. You're guessing.

> > > > > > > > > > > Try reading this:http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/start.shtml
> > > > > > > > > > > then get back to me.

> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 6:50 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > Mutation can give rise to increased genetic

> Genesis 1:24-25

> And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to
> their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild
> animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild
> animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their
> kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to
> their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

> On Nov 7, 11:31 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Nov 7, 12:15 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > Bullshit. Scientists' careers are made by disproving existing
> > > > theories. Name any famous scientist. Chances are they're famous
> > > > because they overturned, disproved, or upset some strongly held notion
> > > > of reality. Albert Einstein is perhaps the most famous scientist of
> > > > the twentieth century and he's famous for completely throwing
> > > > everything we thought we know about time, space and gravity out the
> > > > window.

> > > Most scientists are in the business of regurgitating the same old same
> > > old an infinitem and ad nauseum.

> > Consequently, most scientist's names are unknown.

> > > It is a extremely rare event for
> > > anyone to make significant steps in science.

> > Ok. I fail to see what this has to do with my point that advances in
> > science are made by challenging, updating, and refuting the status
> > quo.

> > > In addition almost never
> > > does anyone throw out "everything we know".

> > Interesting. Did you not read the rest of my sentence? Because the
> > rest of that statement is important and if you wish to represent my
> > position accurately, and respond to the points I'm actually making,
> > then you should include it.

> > > ALL scientists including
> > > Einstein build on others' work. Like Newton said he was standing on
> > > the shoulders of giants.

> > > > Scientists are, by far, not fearful of discrimination. Rather they
> > > > invite it.

> > > I suggest you spend some time with some real scientists sometime.

> > > > Take the Bohr-Einstein Debates about quantum mechanics. Two groups of
> > > > scientific giants going head to head, publicly, about the fundamental
> > > > nature of reality. These debates did wonders for the advancement of
> > > > science.

> > > > People that think that scientists are bullied into touting some
> > > > mainstream agenda simply have no idea what they're talking about.

> > > No, only 99% of the time.

> > > > Zero. Science thrives on conflict and the overturning of theories. The
> > > > more well established the theory, the better it is when it is upset.
> > > > When Newton came along, scientists thought that our understanding of
> > > > the universe was almost complete. Then came Einstein. Far from being
> > > > fearful of discrimination, or risking his career by going public, he
> > > > published the problems (and his solutions) and became one of the most
> > > > famous scientists of all time.

> > > Take you raggety arse into a Science department of a University
> > > sometime and observe the pale shadows of autistic anoraks that dwell
> > > inside the dusty darkened corridors.

> > > > Scientists are well aware of what the actual problems with any given
> > > > scientific theory. Many accolades are waiting for the person that can
> > > > solve them.

> > > > Please, educate yourself - you aren't going to fool anyone here.

> > > > > On Nov 3, 3:32 pm, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > But the functional mutation rate is NOT 10^-74! I mean you are not
> > > > > > addressing the problem with your argument at all. You are claiming
> > > > > > that Robinson had a good mathematical model and I am saying if you
> > > > > > accept that he did then your argument still does not hold up because
> > > > > > you are using numbers that are incorrect.

> > > > > > On Nov 3, 11:15 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > Sebastian give it up. The bacterial colony Dr. Robinson used is
> > > > > > > enormously large i.e. The entire earth surface extending to outer
> > > > > > > space. The mutation rate he used is greater than theoretically
> > > > > > > possible. i.e. every division of every bacteria in the colony at the
> > > > > > > maximum rate of 150 mutation per division. The time he used include
> > > > > > > every moment of earth history. i.e. from the beginning of the earth
> > > > > > > history. Yet this process cannot produce mathematically one functional
> > > > > > > 150 amino acid protein (a small protein molecule) by random mutation.
> > > > > > > You need to produce over 25,000 larger protein of over 1000 amino
> > > > > > > acids to give rise to a human. The Evolution theory is not viable.
> > > > > > > Give it up Sebastian. This is a CHECKMATE.

> > > > > > > On Nov 3, 7:39 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > I also posted two other articles that find much higher functional
> > > > > > > > mutation rates than the one quoted by you. If you search the
> > > > > > > > scientific literature you will find that the functional mutation rates
> > > > > > > > are slowly becoming a popular topic of research in fundamental
> > > > > > > > evolutionary theory. However, your number is vastly underestimated.

> > > > > > > > On Nov 2, 7:07 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > The reference you provided pointed out that random mutation is the
> > > > > > > > > ultimate source of genetic variation. (see link and quotation you
> > > > > > > > > provided below)

> > > > > > > > >http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/ICchance.shtml

> > > > > > > > > Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-
> > > > > > > > > random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source
> > > > > > > > > of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which
> > > > > > > > > some variants survive and others do not, is not random.

> > > > > > > > > So random mutation is the primary cause for various genetic
> > > > > > > > > combination. Mutations occurs during cell divisions and is past on to
> > > > > > > > > the next generation. For every 10 74 combination for a 150 genes you
> > > > > > > > > will have a potential functional protein form. If this protein gives
> > > > > > > > > the organism an advantage then natural selection will allow for this
> > > > > > > > > variant to survive.
> > > > > > > > > The article present a massive, dense, unrealistic bacterial colony in
> > > > > > > > > size that all the bacteria are mutating this 150 gene randomly at the
> > > > > > > > > maximum rate possible ( 150 genes per cell division) continuously from
> > > > > > > > > the time the earth was formed. The total permutation that could occur
> > > > > > > > > during this time was significantly less than 10 74 permutations.
> > > > > > > > > The obvious conclusion then is these variations did not occur from
> > > > > > > > > random mutation. Therefore random mutation is not the ultimate source
> > > > > > > > > for genetic variation. But, Evolution is based on random mutation.( as
> > > > > > > > > stated by your reference above) Therefore, Evolution is not the basis
> > > > > > > > > for genetic variation.. This is a simply mathematical conclusion.
> > > > > > > > > Therefore evolution is not a viable theory.
> > > > > > > > > Look, you will never find TRUTH if you are not HONEST with the facts.
> > > > > > > > > I use to be a believer in evolution. With this kind of evidence I
> > > > > > > > > would be a fool to continue believing in it. If you understand
> > > > > > > > > mathematics and still believe in evolution with this information. You
> > > > > > > > > are a damn ....  I don't call people fools period.

> > > > > > > > > On Nov 2, 6:22 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > Your functional mutation rate is 10^-74, and that is orders of
> > > > > > > > > > magnitude off. Again, I can only ask you to check the articles I
> > > > > > > > > > posted. If you do not want to read and learn, then it is you who
> > > > > > > > > > refuses to attempt to decipher the laws of nature.

> > > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 11:50 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation is NOT 1 x 10-74. This is the amount
> > > > > > > > > > > of mutations that must take place to meet the permutation requirement
> > > > > > > > > > > so  that a 150 gene can produce a functional protein.

> > > > > > > > > > > The mutation rate in the equation per mm-3 per year is

> > > > > > > > > > > 4 x 10 13 x 150 x 5.37 x 10 5 = 3.2 x 10-21 mutations /per mm-3/per
> > > > > > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > > > > (number of bacteria per mm-3 x number of bacterial mutation per cell
> > > > > > > > > > > division x number of division per year)

> > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 4:19 am, "Daniel T." <danie...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > You claimed that evolution was an unsubstantiated theory, I showed you
> > > > > > > > > > > > that you were wrong and now you accept evolution. You claimed that
> > > > > > > > > > > > mutation rates were on the order of 1 x 10-74, then I showed you that
> > > > > > > > > > > > you were wrong again, they are more on the order of 1 x 10-3. Then you
> > > > > > > > > > > > claimed that mutations only works through base pair deletion, and that
> > > > > > > > > > > > all the genes needed for life would have to have existed at the
> > > > > > > > > > > > outset; I showed you that new genes are created and you now agree that
> > > > > > > > > > > > mutation can give rise to increased genetic material.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Now you claim that there is not enough time in history for evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > to explain the diversity of creatures that exist... but you

> Genesis 1:24-25

> And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to
> their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild
> animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild
> animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their
> kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to
> their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

> > Genesis 1:24-25

> > And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to
> > their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild
> > animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild
> > animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their
> > kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to
> > their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

> And the Scientific American said:

> "" Evolution continues today, and sometimes we can watch it happening.
> Researchers in the November 6th edition of the journal Science say
> that they caught in the act a population of butterflies in Ecuador
> potentially diverging into two distinct species.

> Heliconius butterflies spread across Central and South America. What
> distinguishes differing Heliconius species is color variation. For
> instance, in Costa Rica, the two most closely related species are
> white or yellow, which prefer to mate with those of their own color.

> In Ecuador, there are also white or yellow Heliconius butterflies that
> live close to one another and have mated freely. But that situation
> might be changing. Scientists studied the butterflies in captivity.
> The two types differ in just one gene responsible for color. But
> yellow males prefer yellow females. While white males go for either
> color female.

> The difference in mate preference could eventually lead to two
> distinct species, as in Costa Rica, with yellow and white butterflies
> that no longer interbreed. The researchers will continue to study the
> role of genes in both color and mate choice—which could send the
> populations diverging forever into new species.""

> So we can "see" evolution happening.

> Published in Scientific American magazine, November edition:http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=butterfly-sh...

> Regards
> Tony

> On Nov 10, 4:55 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Nov 8, 6:02 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Genesis 1:24-25

> > > And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to
> > > their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild
> > > animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild
> > > animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their
> > > kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to
> > > their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

> > And the Scientific American said:

> > "" Evolution continues today, and sometimes we can watch it happening.
> > Researchers in the November 6th edition of the journal Science say
> > that they caught in the act a population of butterflies in Ecuador
> > potentially diverging into two distinct species.

> > Heliconius butterflies spread across Central and South America. What
> > distinguishes differing Heliconius species is color variation. For
> > instance, in Costa Rica, the two most closely related species are
> > white or yellow, which prefer to mate with those of their own color.

> > In Ecuador, there are also white or yellow Heliconius butterflies that
> > live close to one another and have mated freely. But that situation
> > might be changing. Scientists studied the butterflies in captivity.
> > The two types differ in just one gene responsible for color. But
> > yellow males prefer yellow females. While white males go for either
> > color female.

> > The difference in mate preference could eventually lead to two
> > distinct species, as in Costa Rica, with yellow and white butterflies
> > that no longer interbreed. The researchers will continue to study the
> > role of genes in both color and mate choice—which could send the
> > populations diverging forever into new species.""

> > So we can "see" evolution happening.

> > Published in Scientific American magazine, November edition:http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=butterfly-sh...

> > Regards
> > Tony

> > Genesis 1:24-25

> > And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to
> > their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild
> > animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild
> > animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their
> > kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to
> > their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

> And the Scientific American said:

> "" Evolution continues today, and sometimes we can watch it happening.
> Researchers in the November 6th edition of the journal Science say
> that they caught in the act a population of butterflies in Ecuador
> potentially diverging into two distinct species.

> Heliconius butterflies spread across Central and South America. What
> distinguishes differing Heliconius species is color variation. For
> instance, in Costa Rica, the two most closely related species are
> white or yellow, which prefer to mate with those of their own color.

> In Ecuador, there are also white or yellow Heliconius butterflies that
> live close to one another and have mated freely. But that situation
> might be changing. Scientists studied the butterflies in captivity.
> The two types differ in just one gene responsible for color. But
> yellow males prefer yellow females. While white males go for either
> color female.

> The difference in mate preference could eventually lead to two
> distinct species, as in Costa Rica, with yellow and white butterflies
> that no longer interbreed. The researchers will continue to study the
> role of genes in both color and mate choice—which could send the
> populations diverging forever into new species.""

> So we can "see" evolution happening.

> Published in Scientific American magazine, November edition:http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=butterfly-sh...

> Regards
> Tony

> On Nov 10, 4:55 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Nov 8, 6:02 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Genesis 1:24-25

> > > And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to
> > > their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild
> > > animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild
> > > animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their
> > > kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to
> > > their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

> > And the Scientific American said:

> > "" Evolution continues today, and sometimes we can watch it happening.
> > Researchers in the November 6th edition of the journal Science say
> > that they caught in the act a population of butterflies in Ecuador
> > potentially diverging into two distinct species.

> > Heliconius butterflies spread across Central and South America. What
> > distinguishes differing Heliconius species is color variation. For
> > instance, in Costa Rica, the two most closely related species are
> > white or yellow, which prefer to mate with those of their own color.

> > In Ecuador, there are also white or yellow Heliconius butterflies that
> > live close to one another and have mated freely. But that situation
> > might be changing. Scientists studied the butterflies in captivity.
> > The two types differ in just one gene responsible for color. But
> > yellow males prefer yellow females. While white males go for either
> > color female.

> > The difference in mate preference could eventually lead to two
> > distinct species, as in Costa Rica, with yellow and white butterflies
> > that no longer interbreed. The researchers will continue to study the
> > role of genes in both color and mate choice—which could send the
> > populations diverging forever into new species.""

> > So we can "see" evolution happening.

> > Published in Scientific American magazine, November edition:http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=butterfly-sh...

> > Regards
> > Tony

> On Nov 10, 4:55 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Nov 8, 6:02 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Genesis 1:24-25

> > > And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to
> > > their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild
> > > animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild
> > > animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their
> > > kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to
> > > their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

> > And the Scientific American said:

> > "" Evolution continues today, and sometimes we can watch it happening.
> > Researchers in the November 6th edition of the journal Science say
> > that they caught in the act a population of butterflies in Ecuador
> > potentially diverging into two distinct species.

> > Heliconius butterflies spread across Central and South America. What
> > distinguishes differing Heliconius species is color variation. For
> > instance, in Costa Rica, the two most closely related species are
> > white or yellow, which prefer to mate with those of their own color.

> > In Ecuador, there are also white or yellow Heliconius butterflies that
> > live close to one another and have mated freely. But that situation
> > might be changing. Scientists studied the butterflies in captivity.
> > The two types differ in just one gene responsible for color. But
> > yellow males prefer yellow females. While white males go for either
> > color female.

> > The difference in mate preference could eventually lead to two
> > distinct species, as in Costa Rica, with yellow and white butterflies
> > that no longer interbreed. The researchers will continue to study the
> > role of genes in both color and mate choice—which could send the
> > populations diverging forever into new species.""

> > So we can "see" evolution happening.

> > Published in Scientific American magazine, November edition:http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=butterfly-sh...

> > Regards
> > Tony

> On Nov 10, 4:04 pm, nascarbob <nascarbob48...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > creation makes a lot more sence than believing something happened by
> > chance.you are made in the image of god, not a monkey.

> > On Nov 10, 4:55 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Nov 8, 6:02 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Genesis 1:24-25

> > > > And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to
> > > > their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and
> wild
> > > > animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the
> wild
> > > > animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their
> > > > kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to
> > > > their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

> > > And the Scientific American said:

> > > "" Evolution continues today, and sometimes we can watch it happening.
> > > Researchers in the November 6th edition of the journal Science say
> > > that they caught in the act a population of butterflies in Ecuador
> > > potentially diverging into two distinct species.

> > > Heliconius butterflies spread across Central and South America. What
> > > distinguishes differing Heliconius species is color variation. For
> > > instance, in Costa Rica, the two most closely related species are
> > > white or yellow, which prefer to mate with those of their own color.

> > > In Ecuador, there are also white or yellow Heliconius butterflies that
> > > live close to one another and have mated freely. But that situation
> > > might be changing. Scientists studied the butterflies in captivity.
> > > The two types differ in just one gene responsible for color. But
> > > yellow males prefer yellow females. While white males go for either
> > > color female.

> > > The difference in mate preference could eventually lead to two
> > > distinct species, as in Costa Rica, with yellow and white butterflies
> > > that no longer interbreed. The researchers will continue to study the
> > > role of genes in both color and mate choice—which could send the
> > > populations diverging forever into new species.""

> > > So we can "see" evolution happening.

> > > Published in Scientific American magazine, November edition:
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=butterfly-sh...

> > > Regards
> > > Tony

> --

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=.

> On Nov 10, 4:04 pm, nascarbob <nascarbob48...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > creation makes a lot more sence than believing something happened by
> > chance.you are made in the image of god, not a monkey.

> > On Nov 10, 4:55 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Nov 8, 6:02 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Genesis 1:24-25

> > > > And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to
> > > > their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild
> > > > animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild
> > > > animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their
> > > > kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to
> > > > their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

> > > And the Scientific American said:

> > > "" Evolution continues today, and sometimes we can watch it happening.
> > > Researchers in the November 6th edition of the journal Science say
> > > that they caught in the act a population of butterflies in Ecuador
> > > potentially diverging into two distinct species.

> > > Heliconius butterflies spread across Central and South America. What
> > > distinguishes differing Heliconius species is color variation. For
> > > instance, in Costa Rica, the two most closely related species are
> > > white or yellow, which prefer to mate with those of their own color.

> > > In Ecuador, there are also white or yellow Heliconius butterflies that
> > > live close to one another and have mated freely. But that situation
> > > might be changing. Scientists studied the butterflies in captivity.
> > > The two types differ in just one gene responsible for color. But
> > > yellow males prefer yellow females. While white males go for either
> > > color female.

> > > The difference in mate preference could eventually lead to two
> > > distinct species, as in Costa Rica, with yellow and white butterflies
> > > that no longer interbreed. The researchers will continue to study the
> > > role of genes in both color and mate choice—which could send the
> > > populations diverging forever into new species.""

> > > So we can "see" evolution happening.

> > > Published in Scientific American magazine, November edition:http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=butterfly-sh...

> > > Regards
> > > Tony- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> Matthew 5:22 (KJV)
> But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause
> shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother,
> Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou *fool
> *, shall be in danger of hell fire.

> > On Nov 10, 4:04 pm, nascarbob <nascarbob48...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > creation makes a lot more sence than believing something happened by
> > > chance.you are made in the image of god, not a monkey.

> > > On Nov 10, 4:55 pm, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > On Nov 8, 6:02 pm, Reasonable <basicse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Genesis 1:24-25

> > > > > And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to
> > > > > their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and
> > wild
> > > > > animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the
> > wild
> > > > > animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their
> > > > > kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to
> > > > > their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

> > > > And the Scientific American said:

> > > > "" Evolution continues today, and sometimes we can watch it happening.
> > > > Researchers in the November 6th edition of the journal Science say
> > > > that they caught in the act a population of butterflies in Ecuador
> > > > potentially diverging into two distinct species.

> > > > Heliconius butterflies spread across Central and South America. What
> > > > distinguishes differing Heliconius species is color variation. For
> > > > instance, in Costa Rica, the two most closely related species are
> > > > white or yellow, which prefer to mate with those of their own color.

> > > > In Ecuador, there are also white or yellow Heliconius butterflies that
> > > > live close to one another and have mated freely. But that situation
> > > > might be changing. Scientists studied the butterflies in captivity.
> > > > The two types differ in just one gene responsible for color. But
> > > > yellow males prefer yellow females. While white males go for either
> > > > color female.

> > > > The difference in mate preference could eventually lead to two
> > > > distinct species, as in Costa Rica, with yellow and white butterflies
> > > > that no longer interbreed. The researchers will continue to study the
> > > > role of genes in both color and mate choice—which could send the
> > > > populations diverging forever into new species.""

> > > > So we can "see" evolution happening.

> > > > Published in Scientific American magazine, November edition:
> >http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=butterfly-sh...

> > > > Regards
> > > > Tony

> > --

> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=.

> --
> High Priestess of Ribbonology
> God Is A Ribbon!
> All Hail The Great Ribbon In The Skyhttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/15oct_ibex.htm?list1303103