Does Evolution have enough time? Haldane's Dilemma by John Harris
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- Does evolution have enough time? ⏱ Secularists (and even some Christians) who believe in "long ages" will tell you that time is one of the four key factors in the processes they claim advanced nothing into human beings. A rarely broadcasted fact, however, is that when the math is done regarding beneficial mutations, the timeline still runs into problems. Our good international friend John Harris of Living Waters Europe will be joining us this and next Thursdays for a two-part #CFSVirtuallyThere2024 series to explain "Haldane's Dilemma." Make plans to join us, and be sure to invite your friends on this #CFSTellAFriendTuesday!
www.livingwate...
tinyurl.com/cf...
lets.church
Really great job and great video. And only 518 views in 3 months. Sad.
It's much worse than that though. "1 beneficial mutation every 300 generation" - "beneficial mutation" does not mean "new information". Science does not know even 1 (single) example of "new information". It is just not possible both from logical and mathematical point of view.
👍
Great presentation. Looking forward to the Part 2 of his discussion. Strange how when science disproves the pseudo-science of evolution, they choose to either ignore the science or 'strain at a gnat and swallow a camel'.
That was fantastic!! I’ve never heard Haldanes dilemma explained in such a clear and understandable way! Thank you!
I've done this before but I usually use the generation time of an ape. The response I usually get is that it's too simplified, and that a mutation event would not always mean 1 base pair. For instance, a replication might double a whole gene, and then a couple of single point mutations on that would create a new gene. I'd like to see a comparison of supposed fusions and replications, etc.
Hi, Tonya. I would naturally make the same argument that mutations are not always single letter.
But the professional evolutionists tell us that they do these calculations with a standardized mutation rate something like 1E-7 or 1E-6. which mean one beneficial point mutation fixes per 10 M or 1 M mutations (depending on the species under consideration).
so then, the critics who make the argument of larger scale mutations aren’t actually following the scientific method used by Kimura et al.
They also aren’t telling us that those mutations are only considered for the 2% protein coding regions of the genome. all other DNA and their associated rates are ignored completely when determining distant common ancestry.
@@mmaimmortals it doesn't matter anyway. I suppose I tend to interact with devout athiests who know this stuff already. They are quite happy to assume whatever mutation and fixation rates they need in order to continue believing in evolution. They imply that if all the junk DNA was proven to have purpose it would change their minds but I bet they won't. They'll just invent something to explain it away. It's all about the heart. This argument is probably better for the multitudes of people who accepted evolution without consideration.
Evolutionists need more time but 180 Billion yeasr, it's never going to happen at least not this year.
You needed to spend more time with your year figure. You show 30 billion in your formula but you list 180 billion. Watch what you're doing to get your math right. 180B/20/300=30M. 30B/20/300=5M. Again, you should have explained the years needed much better. You're leaving me confused with your years needed explanation.