Genetics is an enemy of evolution!

Status
Not open for further replies.

4Jesus4ever

Active Member
Mar 4, 2004
265
9
✟454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Evolution does not state that a species will 'randomly" switch to another, completely different species, especially not within the context u r implying. U make it sound as if evolutionists r trying to say that the offspring of one species will randomly morph into a completely different species. Moreover, it seems u r implying this can happen within a single generation. It doesn't work like this.

I never said that they randomly change from one form to another. What I said is that the genetic mutations that occur are not frequent enough and since more that 99% of those mutations are not beneficial to the animal to support evolution. Further, I am not talking about a single generation. The example I cited was with the common fruit fly. Geneticists have bred millions upon millions of generations over the last hundred years and sped up the mutation rate 15,000% and even though there were slight changes such as thicker and longer hair or different colored wings, no extreme changes over all those generations and vast numbers of mutations occured.

Sorry, but they r the same Genus, not species. There r different species of dogs, such as dalmations and St. Bernards. But they, wolves, coyotes, etc r all in the same Genus.

My Bad. The name did not make any difference as to whether wolves and dogs can breed. They can.

They are in the Order: Carnivora / Family: Canidae / Genus: Canus / Specie: Lupus {(Wolf)-Subspecies:Familiaris(Dog)} and Mesomelas(Jackal) and Latrans(Coyote) and Lagopus(Fox)...............etc.

I didn't think anybody here speaks latin or would care to read it. :wave:
 
Upvote 0
4Jesus4ever said:
Viruses are far from humans on the "evolutionary scale", if such a thing exists.
Ah, but the issue of endogenous retroviruses has nothing to do with the evolutionary relationship of humans to the viruses, but rather that the viruses tag organisms in a statistically unique fashion. All humans share certain viral tags. Furthermore, all humans and chimpanzees share some of those viral tags.

You can find more discussion about it in this thread.
 
Upvote 0

kenneth558

Believer in the Invisible
Aug 1, 2003
745
22
65
Omaha, NE
Visit site
✟19,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
4Jesus4ever, I wish I had time to read all your posts, but I'm taking 20 cr hrs so I have to use my time wisely. The Lord give you wisdom and patience as you debate in the marketplace. Keep it up, and be sure to do your thinking for yourself. :wave: I'm taking an Evolution class right now and see so many wimpy arguments for evolution in my textbook. :sick: The proof of intelligent design stares everyone in the face and they just close their eyes. They'd rather bet not only their lives but also their eternal destiny on the least probable (Godless evolution) instead of the most obvious (intelligent design).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4Jesus4ever
Upvote 0
T

The Bellman

Guest
kenneth558 said:
4Jesus4ever, I wish I had time to read all your posts, but I'm taking 20 cr hrs so I have to use my time wisely. The Lord give you wisdom and patience as you debate in the marketplace. Keep it up, and be sure to do your thinking for yourself. :wave: I'm taking an Evolution class right now and see so many wimpy arguments for evolution in my textbook. :sick: The proof of intelligent design stares everyone in the face and they just close their eyes.
What evidence is there for intelligent design? I've never seen any, and I've looked hard.

kenneth558 said:
They'd rather bet not only their lives but also their eternal destiny on the least probable (Godless evolution) instead of the most obvious (intelligent design).
Yes, evolution is godless, in just the same way as gravitational theory and the theory of relativity and every other scientific theory is godless. Do you have a problem with them being "godless" too?
 
Upvote 0

4Jesus4ever

Active Member
Mar 4, 2004
265
9
✟454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
The Bellman said:
What evidence is there for intelligent design? I've never seen any, and I've looked hard.

Maybe you haven't looked hard enough. How about DNA? Even evolutionists must admit that it is most definitely, intelligently designed. Yet it just happened to appear from nothing. In addition, even in the one-celled protozoa such as the phylum Apicomplexa, the nucleus has DNA. How did something so complex get there from basic elements.

Yes, evolution is godless, in just the same way as gravitational theory and the theory of relativity and every other scientific theory is godless. Do you have a problem with them being "godless" too?

Other scientific theories such as Coulomb's Law or quantum theory, theory of relativity,etc. don't try disprove the existence of a Creator.

Take the theory of quantum physics for example. It proves that energy is matter or particles (quanta) of matter and by logical reasoning matter can be construed as energy. Max Planck developed this theory. He determined that the oscillation frequency of a light source v times the constant h (Planck's constant) will give us the "atoms" of energy that that light source has. The quantity of these particles depends on the frequency of the oscillations of the frequency of the light. A series of these oscillations make up a quanta of light. This was tested by sticking certain isotopes in a vacuum chamber of some sort putting a positive and negative field on opposite sides of the contraption, bombarding the isotope with light and observing a stream of electrons going from the isotope to the postive side of the "jar". This can actually prove God to exist. We, matter(mass) are also energy(as in a soul) and can change from matter to energy. God, and his divine energies
are a mystery to us.

Coulomb's Law relates the attraction between any two objects (like planets and satellites and other planets) as the Mass of the two objects times a constant divided by the distance between the two. All actually, quite brilliantly designed.

The theory of relativity is just an expansion on the quantum theory. It relates the energy of an object with the mass and the speed of light.

I do not by any means have any problem with scientific theory. What I have a problem with is the claim by evolutionists that they have all the answers and they know this to be the Truth, when in fact, genetic experiments have proven it rediculously unlikely and there is not one shred of evidence to support this bizarre claim. It is as if they try to find reasons why it could be true while completely ignoring all the evidence against it. Whenever evolutionists are confronted with a real question they just dismiss it with:"Give it time".
 
Upvote 0
[quote] According to the theory of evolution, a certain number of mutations and generations is believed to have caused us to evolve to the species which is today known as the Homo Sapien. This number of mutations and generations have been exceeded by a large margin in the Drosophilia. So yes, they would expect them to turn into monkeys by now. Although sad for evolutionists, it is true. [/quote] please show your calculations which demonstrate this, the drosophila genome and the human genome are online - find out how many mutations are required to make the change, and the mutation rate in drosophila populations in the lab

you can't, because your assertion is bullcrap

Do you even see what you are writing? The real environment shows these mutations 15,000 times SLOWER. What is the difference as long as these mutations have occured. We supposedly evolved through mutations. If the same number of mutations is supposed to create a human being why didn't it create one? Also, why did it not even create a much different species, like a wasp or a bee? Do you see my point?
the mutation rate per generation is vastly different between wild populations and lab populations, this is why these experiments mean nothing

I don't need to put my calculation here because I didn't calculate it. Dr Lee Spetner, who taught at John Hopkins University and has a P.hd. from MIT in biophysics calculated that. Maybe you should pose that question to him.
spetner has done nothing of the sort
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
4Jesus4ever said:
Other scientific theories such as Coulomb's Law or quantum theory, theory of relativity,etc. don't try disprove the existence of a Creator.
Neither does evolution. Can you show us a single evolutionary paper or research article written by a biologist on evolution that states anything about the existence of a Creator?

Many biologists who study evolution are Christian. Why do you misrepresent the work they do and their beliefs?
 
Upvote 0
I

Ishmael Borg

Guest
4Jesus4ever said:
Even evolutionists must admit that it is most definitely, intelligently designed.
No, there is no reason that we must. If it's too complex for you to understand, that's cool, just don't deceive yourself into thinking that we all back away from understanding complex subjects in the same way you do: Goddidit!!!!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

4Jesus4ever

Active Member
Mar 4, 2004
265
9
✟454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
The Bellman said:
That's simply false. Evolutionists include people of virtually every religious belief - the majority of christians are evolutionists. Evolution has nothing at all to do with the idea that god will judge. Nor is there any evidence that evolutionists are less moral than creationists.

There are ignorant people in all walks of life that are being taught random guesswork in schools as fact. When in fact, it is not. All I can say to that is if someone does not believe that God created them then they would have no responsibility to please God, but rather please themselves, as much as the secular law allows. In addition, The book Mein Kampf (My Fight) written by Hitler is incredibly similar to Darwin's "Origin of the Species". Nuff said

Ostriches don't bury their head in the sand at all - that's a myth, so that one's easily enough disposed of. And they didn't evolve useless wings...they gradually (via evolution) lost the power to fly with their wings. The wings they have are vestigal. While the ability to fly might well have been an advantage, it wasn't enough of an advantage to warrant being selected for, given their size. The amount of wing span and muscles to drive them for a bird that size would require a large amount of "investment" in terms of food (fuel) - food that could otherwise be used to fuel their powerful legs. In short, they traded in flying for running.

That was a pun on the post I responded to. You mean like Pterodactyls? They were pretty heavy and flew quite well. Maybe we should trade our legs for wings? I would rather fly. How about you? Think about the gasoline we would save. Man, now that is advantageous. Ostriches eat shoots, leaves, flowers and seeds. They could get around more to eat more of them if they flew. :D
 
Upvote 0

4Jesus4ever

Active Member
Mar 4, 2004
265
9
✟454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
ifriit said:
Ah, but the issue of endogenous retroviruses has nothing to do with the evolutionary relationship of humans to the viruses, but rather that the viruses tag organisms in a statistically unique fashion. All humans share certain viral tags. Furthermore, all humans and chimpanzees share some of those viral tags.

Dr. Mae Wan Ho & Professor Malcolm Hooper
Most HERVs and retrotransposons are defective, having lost one or more gene functions; but can nevertheless multiply and move with the help of other elements or infecting viruses.

HERVs are flanked by 'long terminal repeats' that contain strong promoters for gene expression. Promoters are stretches of DNA with binding sites for transcription factors of the host cell that boosts transcription, effectively saying to the cell, "make many copies of the message following". HERVs and retrotransposons are regulated by the cell, and ultimately, by the organism as a whole, which stops most of them from being expressed. (The one's that are expressed would involve a loss of information not a gain-hence the term retro-Therefore, we would evolve backwords not forwards)

In a comprehensive review published in 1996, virologists Howard Urnovitz and William Murphy raised the possibility that many chronic debilitating diseases may be linked to HERVs. These include leukaemia and other cancers, B-cell immunoglobulin diseases, inflammatory diseases of the nervous system, autoimmune rheumatic and connective tissue disease and chronic fatigue syndrome.

One way in which endogenous viruses can cause disease is for them to move and insert itself next to certain genes, that, when over-expressed, results in uncontrolled cell division, or cancer. This mechanism may be involved in mouse and human leukaemia, breast cancer and teratocarcinoma. This is also the mechanism that causes cancer in gene therapy, when viral vectors integrate next to these same genes.

Another way in which disease may arise is when HERV encoded proteins are expressed. This provokes antibodies against the body's own cells, giving rise to autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus erythematosus, Sjögren's syndrome, mixed connective tissue diseases and inflammatory neurologic disease. The inflammatory response could be the most important trigger for the development of autoimmune disease, as infecting viruses can strongly activate HERVs to express, resulting in production of HERV protein antigens.

In his view, "there appears to be a limit on how much foreign material to which the human body can be exposed before some level of genetic damage occurs and a chronic disease initiates".

Further support to this similarity has been provided by the ability of the env-like gene of DmeGypV (the Gypsy endogenous retrovirus of Drosophila melanogaster) to promote infection of Drosophila cells by a pseudotyped vertebrate retrovirus vector.

Song SU, Gerasimova T, Kurkulos M, Boeke JD, Corces VG: An env-like protein encoded by a Drosophila retroelement: evidence that gypsy is an infectious retrovirus.
Genes Dev 1994, 8:2046-57.

Endogeneous viruses debilitate the cells and destroy the structure of the genetic code. They do NOT improve the code but DESTROY and change it, not into something not superior but into something inferior. The bodies reaction to these changes in the genetic structure causes a variety of diseases that plague mankind. They do not help man to evolve into a "better" species but damage the structure already there. It is a loss of information not a gain.
This is again an evolutionist attempt to "grasp at straws" in order to back up their theory. :D :D :wave:
 
Upvote 0

4Jesus4ever

Active Member
Mar 4, 2004
265
9
✟454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
ForeRunner said:
As a side note, their wings do create lift and allow them to run much faster.

Wow! I that that they could fly faster and get more food from a variety of different places on this earth, rather than run faster....It''s a bird. It would have no enemies in the air although it would be kind of scary seeing them fly. Maybe that's why cheetahs don't have wings to create lift. That's maybe why we are not so fit in the wild, yet we are the most "evolved". Put us in a cage with wild animals and we'll be the first to go. Yes, we have a brain that can conceive worldwide nuclear anialation of our entire existance. That really helps our survival, don't you think? :D :D
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Herman Hedning

Hiking is fun
Mar 2, 2004
503,922
1,572
N 57° 44', E 12° 00'
Visit site
✟734,603.00
Faith
Humanist
4Jesus4ever said:
Wow! I that that they could fly faster and get more food from a variety of different places on this earth, rather than run faster....It's a bird. It would have no enemies in the air although it would be kind of scary seeing them fly.
This is silly! The reason why ostriches and related birds lost their capapility to fly was so they could grow to the massive size they have. An ostrich can weigh over 150 kg and it has an extinct ancestor (Dromornis Stirtoni) that weighted in at over 450 kg. Compare that to the heaviest flying bird - the great bustard - at just over 20 kg.
 
Upvote 0

4Jesus4ever

Active Member
Mar 4, 2004
265
9
✟454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
ForeRunner said:
I am under the distinct impression that the creationists in this thread think that evolution means that a chicken will lay an egg and a cat will hatch from it.

No, that is not what creationists think. How do you describe the "creation" of DNA in the first place. It evolved! Right! Prove it! Does any scientist in the world have a theory that is backed up with concrete facts and is derived through the application of the scientific method, through experimentation and observation of the results of the experimentation to prove how and why it came to be in the first place?

Let me ask you a question. How many identifiable "kinds" are on the planet earth. there are 1.5 million documented species, with estimates ranging from 50-100 million on the higher end.

How many "kinds" are there. If it is sooo easy to identify "kinds" then how many "kinds" are represented in those 1.5m species.

"Kinds" really is an overused term. The correct term would be species. Species is defined as a group of animals or plants that have certain PERMANENT characteristics in common and are able to interbreed.

Ring species are indisputable, real-time proof that "macroevolution" happens. You can travel around the world yourself and see it happen with your own eyes. The tap dance of "but those two birds are the same 'kind' even if they can't mate". Sorry, you lose, goodnight.

So far is has been observed in only two "creatures" the Herring gull and the salamander. This is not indisputable proof. It is a very rare occurance and not common enough to prove evolution to be a fact. It has to do with a damage to their genetic code not an evolution of a superior sub-species
but an inferior one.
 
Upvote 0

ThePhoenix

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2003
4,708
108
✟5,476.00
Faith
Christian
4Jesus4ever said:
No, that is not what creationists think. How do you describe the "creation" of DNA in the first place. It evolved! Right! Prove it! Does any scientist in the world have a theory that is backed up with concrete facts and is derived through the application of the scientific method, through experimentation and observation of the results of the experimentation to prove how and why it came to be in the first place?
WHAT?!? Hello, Aborogenesis, not evolution. Please repeat this to yourself until it sinks in.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

4Jesus4ever

Active Member
Mar 4, 2004
265
9
✟454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
caravelair said:
that wasn't my point. my point was relating to your definition of "kind". you said that 2 species that can't reproduce together are different kinds, and 2 that can are the same kind. but in a ring species, we can have 3 populations of the species, A, B and C, where A can breed with B, B can breed with C but A can't breed with C. A can breed with B, so they are the same kind. B can breed with C, so they are the same kind. A and C are both the same kind as B, so they must be the same kind. but they can't breed, so they are not the same kind! a contradiction! looks like your version of "kind" is not well-defined. this also implies that there is NO genetic barrier between species.



as for this, the information argument is simply ****. i have dealt with this argument thoroughly on this thread. you might want to check it out.

Instead of studying genetics and evolution you copy and past from anti-Christian websites and I have seen this done throughout this thread. Othrwise we would get more intelligent responses.

So far as I know it have been observed in only the Herring gull and the salamander and in some mice. It is extremely rare. Not common enough to prove evolution to be fact. In fact it means that our description of species is not accurate.

Sometimes evolutionists argue that there are some instances of “circular discontinuity” in populations of mice and certain birds, where the geographically closest populations can interbreed, but the most widely separated populations can’t. They claim this shows speciation in progress, but it really just shows that the definition of species is imperfect.

Ref:
Genes, Categories, and Species The Evolutionary and Cognitive Causes of the Species Problem, 2001, Oxford University Press
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.