• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Do you deny that info is added when environmental factors interact with mutations and effect the frequency of alleles in the next generation?
It's added in some areas and removed in others. The net effect is less information.
You're going to find yourself on the wrong side of history of you keep it up. The reason multiple LUCAs are being flung out like wet spaghetti is because undirected mutations + natural selection doesn't work scientifically.
Your evidence showed that evolution occurred but it was not really a speciation event yet.
:ROFLMAO::LOL::D It showed what I said it showed. You're so tone deaf you have no idea what I said.
What about the fossil record? We do not see kinds oscillating. We see extinction of some kinds. We see new kinds popping up at different points in time. We see a succession of kinds flowing into another kind!!
Dude, stop hitting yourself.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
It's added in some areas and removed in others. The net effect is less information.

Even in the simplistic way you are looking at it, a mutation by repetition adds information. It literally adds a substrate for the environment to have "it's" say about. It could possibly be just noise for a while in the gene pool. However, it could alone or in combination with other mutations give reproductive advantage.
You're going to find yourself on the wrong side of history of you keep it up. The reason multiple LUCAs are being flung out like wet spaghetti is because undirected mutations + natural selection doesn't work scientifically.
It works fine in conjunction with epigenetics.
:ROFLMAO::LOL::D It showed what I said it showed. You're so tone deaf you have no idea what I said.
I do not care what you said. I care about only what the experiment means in context.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Even in the simplistic way you are looking at it, a mutation by repetition adds information.
Duplication does not add useful information at all.
It literally adds a substrate for the environment to have "it's" say about.
Again, you are using terms of intelligence applied to nature.
It could possibly be just noise for a while in the gene pool.
It's damage to the existing genes.
However, it could alone or in combination with other mutations give reproductive advantage.
Only in your dreams.
It works fine in conjunction with epigenetics.
Again, you're dreaming.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Duplication does not add useful information at all.
Yes it can.
Again, you are using terms of intelligence applied to nature.
Okay, I am in the sense that It is systematic and leads to storage of information over time. It is in no way a sentient or executive intelligence though.
It's damage to the existing genes.
Only from a warped misunderstanding that the status quo should be maintained. It changes the genes. Leave your values aside.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Yes it can.
More data is not neccesarily more information.
Okay, I am in the sense that It is systematic and leads to storage of information over time.
No, it does not... that AGAIN is just you dreaming.
It is in no way a sentient or executive intelligence though.
Please show us where intelligence comes from in a purely material world.
Only from a warped misunderstanding that the status quo should be maintained. It changes the genes. Leave your values aside.
You attempt to create an unfair playing field. I won't fall of it.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Please show us where intelligence comes from in a purely material world.
The change in allele frequencies across generations means a pathway to success is forged over time. Organisms are better and better able to contend with environmental changes.
 

Right Divider

Body part
The change in allele frequencies across generations means a pathway to success is forged over time.
Utter nonsense. Mutations are damage. They are not a creative force.

"a pathway to success"... hugely funny!!!
Organisms are better and better able to contend with environmental changes.
Based on variations and adaptions within the already existing genes.

Get some new material.
 
Last edited:

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Utter nonsense. Mutations are damage. They are not a creative force.
Do you have any mutations? Did they damage you? The rare mutation is damaging to an individual. Accumulating benign mutations that can coalesce to increase variability in populations and can test out reproductive success is a clear path to adaptation over time. You have yet to articulate why this cannot occur. Instead you just repeat that it cannot.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Do you have any mutations? Did they damage you? The rare mutation is damaging to an individual.
Look up "genetic load".

Damaging mutations are the norm.
Accumulating benign mutations that can coalesce to increase variability in populations and can test out reproductive success is a clear path to adaptation over time.
Again you make vain claims. Mistakes are not improvements.
You have yet to articulate why this cannot occur. Instead you just repeat that it cannot.
We do not see the types of changes that can design complex systems, such as humans.

Humans (and really any living organisms) are highly complex integrated systems. They do not work without ALL SYSTEM COMPONENTS working together.
 
Last edited:

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Look up "genetic load".

Damaging mutation are the norm.
You yourself have 70 to 200 mutations. How are you feeling?
Again you make vain claims. Mistakes are not improvements.
Mistakes that increase variability to be selected from in a population can and do lead to improvements. E. Coli that metabolizes citrate becomes the norm in environment where there are none of the usual sources of nutrition.
We do not see the types of changes that can design complex systems, such as humans.

Yes we do - in the fossil record. Take one step at a time and stop trying to jump a flight at once.
Humans (and really any living organisms) are highly complex integrated systems. They do not work without ALL SYSTEM COMPONENTS working together.
All system components existed in rudimentary forms and evolved together. Example: Light sensitive cell spots gradually became eyes.
 

Right Divider

Body part
You yourself have 70 to 200 mutations. How are you feeling?
I'm still human, just like everyone else.
Mistakes that increase variability to be selected from in a population can and do lead to improvements.
Again, a false claim without support.
The variability is ALREADY THERE in the genes.
E. Coli that metabolizes citrate becomes the norm in environment where there are none of the usual sources of nutrition.
Just more silliness on your part.
Yes we do - in the fossil record. Take one step at a time and stop trying to jump a flight at once.
The fossil record is the record of a global flood and not a gradual history over supposed millions of year.
All system components existed in rudimentary forms and evolved together.
Utter nonsense.
Example: Light sensitive cell spots gradually became eyes.
A light sensitive cell is extremely complex. You are just regurgitating worn-out nonsense.
 
Last edited:

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
...Light sensitive cell spots gradually became eyes.
This has always been evolution's problem, this 'gradual' thing. The fossil record is basically empty of intermediates, the evidence only supports 'macro' evolutionary changes, not this 'gradual' idea. The 'gradual' idea is a theory hoping to be confirmed one day, but the evidence does not support the claim. It's extrapolation masquerading as interpolation.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
This has always been evolution's problem, this 'gradual' thing. The fossil record is basically empty of intermediates, the evidence only supports 'macro' evolutionary changes, not this 'gradual' idea. The 'gradual' idea is a theory hoping to be confirmed one day, but the evidence does not support the claim. It's extrapolation masquerading as interpolation.
This is just inaccurate. What was once a semi-reasonable concern has collapsed over time. Remedial forms have been found in almost every lineage in recent decades. The bat lineage still has a few gaps but otherwise everything is falling into place. Truth of the matter is: every fossil is of a transitional form. It is really just a matter of what was found first and where dead animals fossilate easily.
 
Last edited:

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
This is just inaccurate. What was once a semi-reasonable concern has collapsed over time. Remedial forms have been found in almost every lineage in recent decades. The bat lineage still has a few gaps but otherwise everything is falling into place. Truth of the matter is: every fossil is of a transitional form. It is really just a matter of what was found first.
Your theory is not the only one which the evidence doesn't conflict with.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
I'm still human, just like everyone else.
This is what you do not get: No creature is born drastically different from its parents. Also: There is no such a thing as a kind, per se. There are distant relatives that lose the ability to procreate with one and other.
Again, a false claim without support.
The variability is ALREADY THERE in the genes.
Novel combinations occur all the time. What is the actual biological mechanism that stops variablity from varying too much then?
The fossil record is the record of a global flood and not a gradual history over supposed millions of year.

Geologists find no global flood. Some fossils are found in ash rather than water. Particular forms are found only at particular levels across the entire world. Radio dating is consistent for various levels across the world. Radioactive particles decay at uniform rates.
A light sensitive cell is extremely complex. You are just regurgitating worn-our nonsense.
Yes complexity existed early on, but still structures became more specialized in some instances. Unnecessary complexity exists because of the bottom up process. A designer would make a more elegant and simple design.
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
This is what you do not get: No creature is born drastically different from its parents.
That is exactly what the Bible says: after their kind.
Also: There is no such a thing as a kind, per se.
Of course there is. We don't know precisely what they were/are, but neither do we know exactly what a "species" is either.
There are distant relatives that lose the ability to procreate with one and other.
That is the opposite of "evolution".
Novel combinations occur all the time.
Always based on what ALREADY EXISTS. That is a FACT.
What is the actual biological mechanism that stops variablity from varying too much then?
The genes themselves.
Geologists find no global flood.
Evolutionist geologists perhaps. The evidence is clearly in the world. That you and they reject it is your own fault.
Some fossils are found in ash rather than water.
Fossilization requires the same type of conditions that occurred during the flood.
Particular forms are found only at particular levels across the entire world.
Particular "levels" are NOT particular times, as your idea of layers laid down over long periods of time is a myth.
Radio dating is consistent for various levels across the world. Radioactive particles decay at uniform rates.
You do NOT know that radioactive particles decay at uniform rates over long periods of time. There are number of well known and well understood phenomenon that cause dramatic changes to decay rate. Z-pinch is one example.

Not to mention that the INITIAL conditions are completely unknown and unknowable.
Yes complexity existed early on,
Indeed, since God created that complexity. You have no actual evidence for an evolutionary origin of this complexity.
but still structures became more specialized in some instances.
Again, a claim WITHOUT support.
Unnecessary complexity exists because of the bottom up process.
Again, a claim WITHOUT support.
A designer would make a more elegant and simple design.
Again, a claim WITHOUT support.

I just have to LAUGH when evolutionists think that they are smarter then God.
 
Last edited:

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
That is exactly what the Bible says: after their kind.
So?
Of course there is. We don't know precisely what they were/are, but neither do we know exactly what a "species" is either.

Species are operational defined within relevant fields of study, though there are different definitions in each.
That is the opposite of "evolution".

No, it's not. It's one definition of speciation. Two species can find their own niche within the environment and not be any less fit overall.
Always based on what ALREADY EXISTS. That is a FACT.
Capitalizing words does not make them more truthful.
The genes themselves.
Explain how the limit works, And why heritable mutations do not matter.
I just have to LAUGH when evolutionists think that they are smarter then God.
You are not God. You do not know him any better than I do.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I was simply agreeing with you when you said:
No creature is born drastically different from its parents.

Species are operational defined within relevant fields of study, though there are different definitions in each.
Again, my point is that BOTH "kind" and "species" do not have an exact definition. It does mean that either are a problem for either model.
No, it's not. It's one definition of speciation. Two species can find their own niche within the environment and not be any less fit overall.
Again, species lack of ability to continue to bred with their ancestors is not "progress" up the "great mountain of evolution".
Capitalizing words does not make them more truthful.
No, they were just truthful to begin with.
Explain how the limit works, And why heritable mutations do not matter.
The limit works because life is designed and not a free-for-all. Heritable mutations don't build anything of value. They are a downhill path, not uphill.
You are not God.
I never claimed to be.
You do not know him any better than I do.
Indeed, I do.

P.S. My understanding is that you are an atheist materialist. If that is not true, please specify your belief system.
 
Last edited:

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Even in the simplistic way you are looking at it, a mutation by repetition adds information.
No, it adds noise. If adding noise added information, then the more static you add to a message the more information it would have. What you don't seem to understand is that the amount of information from a source is determined by the receiver, not the sender. The question you need to ask is what processes those repeats? Was it modified to understand the static?
It literally adds a substrate for the environment to have "it's" say about. It could possibly be just noise for a while in the gene pool. However, it could alone or in combination with other mutations give reproductive advantage.
If you understand what I just said above, you'll understand why all improvements, bar none, cannot contain too much noise. Which is why all improvements we see so far are subsets of the information that was already there.
It works fine in conjunction with epigenetics.
Ah, yes, the common descentists new black box. This is what you are saying: "since DNA has not been able to make a novel feature, we'll start claiming it's epigenetics that makes magical improvements since it is not well understood how epigenetics works yet."

Epigenetics will be understood some day. It won't save you.
I do not care what you said. I care about only what the experiment means in context.
What the experiment means is exactly what I said, even in context. Both the Harvard experiment and the Lenski experiment show, as in every other similar experiment, that the information in the resulting organisms are subsets of the information their parents had.

If you think otherwise, you'll have to show the context.
 
Top