How much longer?

[AV1611VET]

What's the difference between magic and ex nihilo?

God

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps I should ask you the same question?
What's the difference between magic and ex nihilo?

In creatio ex nihilo, the amount of mass/energy in the universe is increased accordingly.

 

[DerelictJunction]

No, I think observation is part of the scientific method.

Duh!! You said you would teach me the scientific method and then proceeded to present a hypothesis (all CSI is produced from intelligence) as an observation. The real observation was that intelligence can produce CSI.

If you don't know the difference between an observation and a hypothesis, how can I trust your judgement regarding the rest of the scientific method?

Do you realize the HOW/process is what I've not gotten any evidence for, based on the scientific method?

Actually, the processes involved in evolution have been presented to you. They are basically, mutation and natural selection. You have not ever made a rebuttal to the claim that mutation and natural selection occur. You have also been quite unable to refute that mutation and natural selection can produce changes in populations of individual organisms that eventually could lead to new life forms (new species).
Since you have not bothered to refute either of those pieces of HOW evidence for the theory of evolution, why should anyone bother to present further details?

 

[DerelictJunction]

The job of a scientist, in my opion, is to observe & manipulate God's creation in such a way as to bring glory to God and benefit mankind.

Anything else is the Devil's work.

Again, in my opinion.

I assume that your opinion limits "bring glory to God" to boundaries that you set. I'll wager that "benefit mankind" must also kowtow to your opinion.

 

[mickiio]

Explain how that works. Thanks.

Take two dogs. We have many different species of dogs right now. The original dog kind, probably resembled a wolf, had several different variants of the fur and other traits as well, but lets just take long & short fur for instance for this example. Think of it this way: Their gene variability would be shown in three different ways: LL for long, LS for medium fur & SS for short. The first two (from the Ark in my theory ) carrying the LS gene would show their genetic variability in three different ways. SS, LS & LL . If the two long fur (LL) dogs then mated the only possible offspring would be (LL) long fur. The long-fur dogs have lost the S gene variant so have lost the capability of producing SS (short fur) or LS (medium fur) gene and are thus incapable of producing a short fur or medium fur dog. Eventually all the dogs in that area will have long fur. This could be an advantage in a colder climate, but a disadvantage in a warmer so they might be selected to die in the warmer environment. Then the short fur dogs would take over that particular area.

1. Through Natural Selection, genetic information (variety) was lost.

2. The long-fur dogs survived better in a colder environment, less able to in warmer and vice-versa.

3. A particular characteristic in the dog population was selected for.

4. Dogs are still dogs since the variation is with-in the boundary of "dog kind".

 

[DerelictJunction]

Take two dogs. We have many different species of dogs right now. The original dog kind, probably resembled a wolf, had several different variants of the fur and other traits as well, but lets just take long & short fur for instance for this example. Think of it this way: Their gene variability would be shown in three different ways: LL for long, LS for medium fur & SS for short. The first two (from the Ark in my theory ) carrying the LS gene would show their genetic variability in three different ways. SS, LS & LL . If the two long fur (LL) dogs then mated the only possible offspring would be (LL) long fur. The long-fur dogs have lost the S gene variant so have lost the capability of producing SS (short fur) or LS (medium fur) gene and are thus incapable of producing a short fur or medium fur dog. Eventually all the dogs in that area will have long fur. This could be an advantage in a colder climate, but a disadvantage in a warmer so they might be selected to die in the warmer environment. Then the short fur dogs would take over that particular area.

1. Through Natrual Selection, genetic information (variety) was lost.

2. The long-fur dogs survived better in a colder environment, less able to in warmer and vice-versa.

3. A particular characteristic in the dog population was selected for.

4. Dogs are still dogs since the variation is with-in the boundary of "dog kind".

Then you don't believe that mutation in the DNA can occur and add variety to the dog genome?

 

[Loudmouth]

1. Through Natrual Selection, genetic information (variety) was lost.

Through mutation, genetic information (i.e. variety) is produced.

 

[mickiio]

Through mutation, genetic information (i.e. variety) is produced.

Prove it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Prove it.

Your own definitions prove it. You have defined a loss in genetic information as the removal of mutations from a population. Therefore, the addition of mutations to a population is an increase in genetic information.

 

[mickiio]

Then you don't believe that mutation in the DNA can occur and add variety to the dog genome?

Mutations occur, yes. However you extrapolate the information and give it much more credit then is observable in science. Natural Selection only works on the information given.

 

[Loudmouth]

Mutations occur, yes. However you extrapolate the information and give it much more credit then is observable in science.

How so?

Natural Selection only works on the information given.

Part of that information is mutations that each individual is born with.

 

[Onearm]

God

I am completely out of my depth here.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Mutations occur, yes. However you extrapolate the information and give it much more credit then is observable in science. Natural Selection only works on the information given.

I don't understand your statement.

If mutations occur in individual organisms then the information in the individual is changed or different from the rest of the population of those organisms and, therefore, the information in the population of organisms that those individuals belong to has increased. This increase of information in the population can then be worked on by Natural selection.

Where have I extrapolated to give mutation more credit than what is observable in science?

What part of my explanation is not observed in science?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

No it's not. It's the result of the HOW, the process, it's not the HOW, the process itself.

Yes, exactly. I showed you the process of how. You failed to address it. Address my entire post step by step and explain in detail why you think it's not evidence.

 

[mickiio]

Your own definitions prove it. You have defined a loss in genetic information as the removal of mutations from a population. Therefore, the addition of mutations to a population is an increase in genetic information.

Nothing was added. The S was taken away. Perhaps you don't know the difference between subtraction and addition?

I don't understand your statement.

If mutations occur in individual organisms then the information in the individual is changed or different from the rest of the population of those organisms and, therefore, the information in the population of organisms that those individuals belong to has increased. This increase of information in the population can then be worked on by Natural selection.

Where have I extrapolated to give mutation more credit than what is observable in science?

What part of my explanation is not observed in science?

I didn't mean "you" personally, it was more you as an evolutionist.

Mutations rarely occur. When mutations do occur in nature, they are either harmful to the organism or "silent" which means it's harmless. There has never been an observed beneficial mutation that added new genetic information. Mutations are harmless or neutral at best, lethal at worst, and never have been proven in nature to be beneficial.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nothing was added.

Mutations are added in every individual in every generation.

Mutations rarely occur.

"Here we present, to our knowledge, the first direct comparative analysis of male and female germline mutation rates from the complete genome sequences of two parent-offspring trios. Through extensive validation, we identified 49 and 35 germline de novo mutations (DNMs) in two trio offspring, as well as 1,586 non-germline DNMs arising either somatically or in the cell lines from which the DNA was derived."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v43/n7/full/ng.862.html

They sequenced two sets of mom, dad, and child genomes and found 35 and 49 mutations in those two sets. This means that all of us are born with 30 to 50 mutations. They aren't rare at all.

When mutations do occur in nature, they are either harmful to the organism or "silent" which means it's harmless. There has never been an observed beneficial mutation that added new genetic information.

The mutations that separate humans and chimps aren't beneficial to either chimps or humans?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Mutations rarely occur.

False: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-is-constantly-changing-through-the-process-6524898

There has never been an observed beneficial mutation that added new genetic information.

This is incorrect. A genetic mutation seen in Tibetans and Han Chinese helps them thrive in high altitudes without getting sick. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jul/02/mutation-gene-tibetans-altitude

Or people who have a genetic mutation in gene CCR5 called delta 32 that makes them resistant to HIV. http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news13

Other examples: http://ratiochristi.org/uah/blog/post/examples-of-beneficial-mutations-in-humans/2011#.VhVDnMtVhBc

 

[YSN-1990]

Evolution has nothing to do with how life started, it's about how life changes once it has started.

I am beginning to think there is something wrong with creationist, when asked a question they keep asking questions instead of answering the question, don't creationists notice this about other creationists? have they been instructed to do this?

I am aware of that, but the comment u made was.

How do creationists think everything got here? by magic?

These are 2 very different statements...

 

[justlookinla]

Perhaps I should ask you the same question?
What's the difference between magic and ex nihilo?

Magic is an illusion and has connotations of the occult. God creating is neither of these.

 

[justlookinla]

Duh!! You said you would teach me the scientific method and then proceeded to present a hypothesis (all CSI is produced from intelligence) as an observation. The real observation was that intelligence can produce CSI.

If you don't know the difference between an observation and a hypothesis, how can I trust your judgement regarding the rest of the scientific method?

I certainly presented that in the thread which was closed and it was concerning intelligent design and tactile sensory units. If you wish, I'll find it and link it here.

Actually, the processes involved in evolution have been presented to you.

I agree. But the how, the process, which Darwinism claims produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago hasn't been presented, based on the scientific method. All that Darwinism has presented is a series of guesses and suppositions concerning the how, the alleged process.

They are basically, mutation and natural selection.

And those are observable in bacteria producing bacteria, finches producing finches, moths producing moths and are based on the scientific method. But not a single solitary bit of evidence can be given concerning the claims of the HOW, the process which Darwinism promotes, namely that mutation and natural selection, coupled with time, produced every life form that's ever lived, including pine trees and humans, from an alleged single life form of long ago. Again, there's no scientific evidence for the view.

You have not ever made a rebuttal to the claim that mutation and natural selection occur.

I've agreed probably hundreds of times on the forum that mutation and natural selection occur. I've done that very thing above

You have also been quite unable to refute that mutation and natural selection can produce changes in populations of individual organisms that eventually could lead to new life forms (new species).

Now you're attempting to make a subtle change in the issue. The issue is concerning evidence, based on the scientific method, that mutation and natural selection was the HOW, the process, for the producing of all life we observe today from an alleged single life form (still unknown) of long long ago.

Since you have not bothered to refute either of those pieces of HOW evidence for the theory of evolution, why should anyone bother to present further details?

All you've done is present baseless claims that mutation and natural selection DID produce all life forms we observe today. That's your guess, your faith-based belief for there's no evidence presented which would verify such a view.