Are discussions on faith and science two different catagories?

[Justatruthseeker]

And this proves what? scientists say that the the Big Bang came from they-don’t-know-yet . Scientists also know that the Big Bang came from somewhere. Creationists don’t even have that much evidence just a Bronze Age holy book that has been demonstrated to inaccurate for at least the last 350 years.

Mistruths. It’s the most historically accurate book there is and is commonly used for archeological digs and dating.

. 1 Your wiseass word twisting assertions remind me of the guys on the corner playing the dozens . They’re still not evidence.

Your claims of such without being able to show such amounts to bald faced claims....

2 mutations don’t damage DNA they just change it . Whether or not the organism can use that changed DNA or not is another story

Such change a possibility already existing in the genome from the beginning.

No matter how many times you rearrange the letters A,B,C,D you can never get F. You can only get the existing possibility of any combination of those letters.

Stop pretending your magical mutations change what exists and gets something that isn’t already a possibility to begin with.

3 Yes two closely related species can produce fertile hybrids . What you don’t seem to get is that this is evidence that these 2 species were once a single interbreeding population that has gradually split apart . Fertile hybrids is just evidence that the two species haven’t completely split apart yet.

And when did finches split apart since the DNA data showed they were never reproductively isolated?

As I stated earlier. It seems only with dogs and man can you correctly decipher what is the same species because of breeding.

That you can’t accept your own definition of species says all that needs said....

 

[Jimmy D]

That’s just it, you then incorrectly classify the new variation as a separate species, when dogs show you just how varied in form the species actually is.

It’s not my fault they ignore reality when it comes to the fossil record.

And just like dogs is why there are no transitory species and why your common ancestors are all missing. There were none to begin with. They have simply inserted their belief and incorrectly classified sub-species as separate species which leads to their need of having to add missing forms....

Well I'm not responsible for classifying species but I'd like to ask a couple of questions....


How would this tree look different if "they" decided to re-classify modern dog dog breeds as separate species?


https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(17)30456-4

.......................................................

I assume that you are familiar with mainstream view of horse evolution?

Do you think that the gradual changes we see in the fossil record should be identified as the "variations with a single species" you alluded to earlier?

 

[Jimmy D]

What's going on with posting images at the moment?

This one should have been displayed above.

 

[BradB]

What does "information being added" actually mean to you? What is your definition and measurement of information with respect to DNA? How do you quantify whether information is being added or subtracted?

Look friend, you can't explain how the information in a news paper was formed by giving me the chemical makeup and compounds found in ink and paper. The information is in the specific arrangement of the ink on the paper to relay a code that in turn gets translated by an intricate system that is completely independent to the arrangement of the ink. Likewise the information in DNA is the CODE found in the arrangement of the nucleotides of the DNA strand. That code is more intricate than our most sophisticated computer software programs by comparison. You can't explain how it could have formed through natural processes by duplication. This would be like claiming the entire set of Encyclopedia Britannica was formed by a process of duplicating the phrase "see spot run" over and over and through time and many duplications and errors... ta da... we now have an entire set of encyclopedias. (I realize I just dated myself. Lol) Someone reading this is going "What's an encyclopedia."

 

[BradB]

. This is a good example of creationist newspeak. It sounds nice and science-y but it’s nonsense . These ARE evolutionary processes . Creationists indulge in denial and they pretend to deny evolution by giving it another name .

Huh? I don't pretend to deny evolution. I flat out deny it because to prove it you have to present at least one example that...ah hem...proves it. An example in the form of at least one finely graduated chain of fossils between any two major forms, or at least one example of an observed random mutation which added new and beneficial (gene increasing) information to the genome of a multi-celled organism.

Instead what evolutionists do is look at similarity between organisms and claim similarity is evidence for evolution. But I have pointed out that similarity fits well within the frame work of a common creator. So the evolutionist just rejects creation and ta da similarity must mean evolution is true.

 

[pitabread]

Likewise the information in DNA is the CODE found in the arrangement of the nucleotides of the DNA strand.

You didn't answer my questions.

If you want to make claims about information being added, subtracted, and so on with respect to DNA then you need a proper definition and quantification of that information.

So what is it? Simply saying it's the "code" or arrangement of nucleotides tells me nothing. If you want to make the claims you are making you need to do some homework first.

(And arguments via analogy are irrelevant. DNA is not software, it's not a book or newspaper, it's not a written language. DNA is biochemistry. Any definition you want to provide for information needs to relate to DNA in that respect.)

 

[pitabread]

Instead what evolutionists do is look at similarity between organisms and claim similarity is evidence for evolution.

*sigh*

No they don't. It's not strictly about similarity. It's about patterns. There's a difference.

 

[pitabread]

But I have pointed out that similarity fits well within the frame work of a common creator.

Everything fits with the common creator because the common creator is an unbounded, magical answer for everything that ultimately explains nothing.

 

[BradB]

There exists no known new genetic information added to the genome by mutations. As you stated they are copy errors (errors in copying what already exists) or deletions, or switching on or off traits.

I know this and you know this, but the average HS and college student is told to believe otherwise. Since I am a creationist I know that my word is completely worthless to them. But I do know that their hatred for me will drive them to want to try and prove me wrong. Therefore I have found that the best way to get the point across to them is to challenge them to present me with an example. They will go off scouring the internet, looking for one, and come up empty over and over. Eventually they will learn for themselves and just maybe the next creationist they encounter they will be open to listen to.

 

[BradB]

Everything fits with the common creator because the common creator is an unbounded, magical answer for everything that ultimately explains nothing.

Were that true then you and I would not be in disagreement. The concept of all life being the result a universal common ancestor does NOT fit at all within the Biblical account of creation. The concept of one major form evolving into another does not fit. The concept of abiogenesis does not fit. In fact there are plenty of things that do not fit. Things which also have no support by the observable evidence unless you eliminate the possibility of a creator. Then of course you have to explain things through natural processes. If you deny even the possibility of a creator's existence before you begin the investigation then all you are left with is natural explanations for life. Similarity then can only be explained by relationship. But some of us are just not willing to make such a blind denial prior to the investigation. Is that so wrong?

 

[pitabread]

he concept of all life being the result a universal common ancestor does NOT fit at all within the Biblical account of creation. The concept of one major form evolving into another does not fit. The concept of abiogenesis does not fit. In fact there are plenty of things that do not fit.

Tell that to your fellow Christians, because plenty of them disagree with you.

 

[pitabread]

I know this and you know this, but the average HS and college student is told to believe otherwise. Since I am a creationist I know that my word is completely worthless to them. But I do know that their hatred for me will drive them to want to try and prove me wrong. Therefore I have found that the best way to get the point across to them is to challenge them to present me with an example. They will go off scouring the internet, looking for one, and come up empty over and over.

The problem isn't so much that this stuff doesn't exist. It's that you (and other creationists) play a shell game with the term "information" to try to deny what you don't want to acknowledge.

I asked you to explicitly define and quantify information with respect to DNA and you couldn't. Thus any claims you make about new information, increasing, decreasing, whatever are ultimately hollow. You're not working with any sort of technical definition and quantification of information that allows you to make those claims.

Meanwhile we have examples of different kinds of mutation that increase the genetic content in a genome, genetic variation, new functions, beneficial traits, and so on. Basically all the stuff you try to claim doesn't exist, does in fact exist.

Heck, I've presented you with multiple examples of beneficial mutations based on certain criteria. For example, you'd previously asked for a beneficial mutation in a multi-cellular organism in a controlled experiment. Extremely, specific criteria, but I found and example and pointed you to it. You never acknowledged it.

Likewise, earlier in this thread you asked for "gene increasing" beneficial mutations in multi-cellular organisms (the only thing which presumably fits gene increasing would be gene duplications). And again, I pointed you to multiple examples of such and still you fail to acknowledge them.

From where I sit it seems like you want to keep pretending these things don't exist. Or in the rare instance where you have acknowledged a mutation, you invoke your shell game involving your nebulous criteria to try to dismiss it.

Then when you continue to claim that these things don't exist, the only thing I can include is that your position is fundamentally dishonest.

If only there were a commandment for that...

 

[Brightmoon]

Were that true then you and I would not be in disagreement. The concept of all life being the result a universal common ancestor does NOT fit at all within the Biblical account of creation. The concept of one major form evolving into another does not fit. The concept of abiogenesis does not fit. In fact there are plenty of things that do not fit. Things which also have no support by the observable evidence unless you eliminate the possibility of a creator. Then of course you have to explain things through natural processes. If you deny even the possibility of a creator's existence before you begin the investigation then all you are left with is natural explanations for life. Similarity then can only be explained by relationship. But some of us are just not willing to make such a blind denial prior to the investigation. Is that so wrong?

. Yes, if you’re doing accurate science it is wrong . Science doesn’t work with supernatural phenomena. Saying God-did-it is just useless in a scientific investigation . And there’s the fact that creationists put out a lot of disinformation and misinformation about confirmed scientific facts in order to shoehorn just-so stories into science . Since I don’t think lying for Jesus is ethical or even sensible under these circumstances, I’m not a fan of creation “ science “ and that includes ID

 

[Brightmoon]

Tell that to your fellow Christians, because plenty of them disagree with you.

. I certainly disagree with anything thing that pretends to refute evolution or abiogenesis by changing accepted scientific terminology and leaving out details. That’s just a fancy form of lying and as a fundie friend of mine likes to say, “ The devil is a liar”.

Look at tas thread on Jonathan Wells and his supposed refutations of common natural examples used to teach some easy biological concepts about evolution or abiogenesis. Wells leaves out details; misuses laymen’s ignorance of the subject to twist meanings and basically outright lies

 

[RealityCheck01]

Mistruths. It’s the most historically accurate book there is and is commonly used for archeological digs and dating.

You miss out that those archeological digs and dating show that parts of the Bible have no or little evidence. That makes the Bible much less historically correct than say a modern book about the history of the Middle East.

Jericho was sacked and abandoned before Joshua. No evidence of large Jewish populations in ancient Egypt. No evidence of Solomon's Temple. No evidence of a King David (a couple of mentions of a House of David). The debate over the Turin Shroud (dated as medieval but maybe from medieval "patches").

Biblical archaeology is archeology illustrating the Bible.

 

[Brightmoon]

No it can’t. That sequence already existed as a possibility, or else any amount of copying and rewriting would not result in the sequence.

Propaganda doesn’t work here, you’ve been repeatedly told that.

You only think it’s new, but it was copied from information that already contained that possibility to begin with.


You could at least be honest. What has been observed is taking something that already exists in another form and rearranging it. The possibility of the new arrangement already existed.


Not in the least, what was already present was simply rearranged. That possibility already existed.



How, when what came before it can not be rearranged in any fashion to produce what cane after? Stop pretending copying what already exists is something new and you’ll see your conceptual error.


Oh no, it definitely is not static, but those changes already exist as a possibility in the genome to begin with.... You seem to be having a difficulty understanding what a transcription error is. It’s transcribing what already exists as a possibility, otherwise it couldn’t transcribe it.....

Genetic frontloading doesn’t work . An Ancestor ”kind” that carries a trait that they don’t use over multiple generations would just eventually lose these genes to random mutations . The genes would change or they’d eventually lose function. This is that Adam-&-Eve-or-Noah’s-survivors-carried-all-genetic-traits nonsense . Creation “ science “ is mainly speculative nonsense

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The problem isn't so much that this stuff doesn't exist. It's that you (and other creationists) play a shell game with the term "information" to try to deny what you don't want to acknowledge.

I asked you to explicitly define and quantify information with respect to DNA and you couldn't. Thus any claims you make about new information, increasing, decreasing, whatever are ultimately hollow. You're not working with any sort of technical definition and quantification of information that allows you to make those claims.

Meanwhile we have examples of different kinds of mutation that increase the genetic content in a genome, genetic variation, new functions, beneficial traits, and so on. Basically all the stuff you try to claim doesn't exist, does in fact exist.

Heck, I've presented you with multiple examples of beneficial mutations based on certain criteria. For example, you'd previously asked for a beneficial mutation in a multi-cellular organism in a controlled experiment. Extremely, specific criteria, but I found and example and pointed you to it. You never acknowledged it.

Likewise, earlier in this thread you asked for "gene increasing" beneficial mutations in multi-cellular organisms (the only thing which presumably fits gene increasing would be gene duplications). And again, I pointed you to multiple examples of such and still you fail to acknowledge them.

From where I sit it seems like you want to keep pretending these things don't exist. Or in the rare instance where you have acknowledged a mutation, you invoke your shell game involving your nebulous criteria to try to dismiss it.

Then when you continue to claim that these things don't exist, the only thing I can include is that your position is fundamentally dishonest.

If only there were a commandment for that...

Evolutionist's can't even agree on the definition of species, let alone what constitutes information. Basically species is now anything anyone wants it to be at any given time. As is information.

I am still waiting for a definition of species that someone will actually abide by after they give it, that doesn't contradict every other definition.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolutionist's can't even agree on the definition of species, let alone what constitutes information.

They also have about seven different theories as to how we got our moon.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Genetic frontloading doesn’t work . An Ancestor ”kind” that carries a trait that they don’t use over multiple generations would just eventually lose these genes to random mutations . The genes would change or they’d eventually lose function. This is that Adam-&-Eve-or-Noah’s-survivors-carried-all-genetic-traits nonsense . Creation “ science “ is mainly speculative nonsense

In your preconcieved view of how variation occurs it is. but real world studies have found the exact opposite to be true.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...orphological_diversity_in_adaptive_radiations

"The process of adaptive radiation involves multiple events of speciation in short succession, associated with ecological diversification. Understanding this process requires identifying the origins of heritable phenotypic variation that allows adaptive radiation to progress. Hybridization is one source of genetic and morphological variation that may spur adaptive radiation. We experimentally explored the potential role of hybridization in facilitating the onset of adaptive radiation. We generated first- and second-generation hybrids of four species of African cichlid fish, extant relatives of the putative ancestors of the adaptive radiations of Lakes Victoria and Malawi. We compared patterns in hybrid morphological variation with the variation in the lake radiations. We show that significant fractions of the interspecific morphological variation and the major trajectories in morphospace that characterize whole radiations can be generated in second-generation hybrids. Furthermore, we show that covariation between traits is relaxed in second-generation hybrids, which may facilitate adaptive diversification. These results support the idea that hybridization can provide the heritable phenotypic diversity necessary to initiate adaptive radiation."

https://www.researchgate.net/public...n_is_important_in_evolution_but_is_speciation

"... This results from segregation and recombination between the parental genomes ( Arnold et al., 2012;Abbott et al., 2013). Previous studies have shown that hybrids are usually a complex mosaic of both parental morphological characters rather than just intermediate pheno- types, and a large proportion of first and later generation hybrids which exhibit extreme or novel characters ( Abbott et al., 2013;Saetre, 2013). The increased morphological variability, increased number of flowers per plant, and different flower colour variations and mode of presenta- tion, exhibited by Psoralea hybrids in our study possibly account for the observed increase in the number and types of different species of pollinators (Xylocopa and Megachile spp) contributing to the observed higher reproductive success of the hybrids in these populations (Stirton pers. ..."

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ssful_Daphnia_galeata_longispina_Hybrid_Clone

"Hybridization within the animal kingdom has long been underestimated. Hybrids have often been considered less fit than their parental species. In the present study, we observed that the Daphnia community of a small lake was dominated by a single D. galeata × D. longispina hybrid clone, during two consecutive years. Notably, in artificial community set-ups consisting of several clones representing parental species and other hybrids, this hybrid clone took over within about ten generations. Neither the fitness assay conducted under different temperatures, or under crowded and non-crowded environments, nor the carrying capacity test revealed any outstanding life history parameters of this hybrid clone. However, under simulated winter conditions (i.e. low temperature, food and light), the hybrid clone eventually showed a higher survival probability and higher fecundity compared to parental species. Hybrid superiority in cold-adapted traits leading to an advantage of overwintering as parthenogenetic lineages might consequently explain the establishment of successful hybrids in natural communities of the D. longispina complex. In extreme cases, like the one reported here, a superior hybrid genotype might be the only clone alive after cold winters. Overall, superiority traits, such as enhanced overwintering here, might explain hybrid dominance in nature, especially in extreme and rapidly changing environments. Although any favoured gene complex in cyclic parthenogens could be frozen in successful clones independent of hybridization, we did not find similarly successful clones among parental species. We conclude that the emergence of the observed trait is linked to the production of novel recombined hybrid genotypes."

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ypic_plasticity_and_transgressive_segregation

"Phenotypic differences may have genetic and plastic components. Here, we investigated the contributions of both for differences in body shape in two species of Lake Malawi cichlids using wild-caught specimens and a common garden experiment. We further hybridized the two species to investigate the mode of gene action influencing body shape differences and to examine the potential for transgressive segregation. We found that body shape differences between the two species observed in the field are maintained after more than 10 generations in a standardized environment. Nonetheless, both species experienced similar changes in the laboratory environment. Our hybrid cross experiment confirmed that substantial variation in body shape appears to be genetically determined. The data further suggest that the underlying mode of gene action is complex and cannot be explained by simple additive or additive- dominance models. Transgressive phenotypes were found in the hybrid generations, as hybrids occupied significantly more morphospace than both parentals combined. Further, the body shapes of transgressive individuals resemble the body shapes ob- served in other Lake Malawi rock-dwelling genera. Our findings indicate that body shape can respond to selection immediately, through plasticity, and over longer time- scales through adaptation. In addition, our results suggest that hybridization may have played an important role in the diversification of Lake Malawi cichlids through creating new phenotypic variation. "

We could go on and on and on and on and show over and over and over again that your beliefs stem from underestimated and from studies that failed to take into account actual affects of hybridization. That your beliefs are old and outdated and are slowly being replaced by the evolutionary belief that is on it's way to replacing your mutations as the driving cause of evolution.

I now await your double-talk and your ignoring your own definition of species....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

They also have about seven different theories as to how we got our moon.

And won't abandon their Fairie Dust Dark Matter despite 80 years of failed experiments.....

And rely on a conceptual error in the Michelson-Morley experiment to confirm their conceptual errors about space-time.