A Question for Creationists

[mzungu]

It may have happened, you just have no evidence thatg any mutation has evere caused a change in the species. All you have is necessary speculation.

Mutations do cause change in species. They do not change one species into another. You really have no idea what you are talking about do you.

Which primate came first? If chimps are our cmmon ancestor, why is our DNA different? Why can't we mate with them and bear offsprsing? Lemers are also primates, why are they not our common ancester?

English is not your mother tongue. You obviously do not know what the word common means. We did not evolve from chimpanzees. We did not evolve from Lemurs. We have a COMMON ancestor.

Where is your evidence? Why is our DNA different than that of ALL other primates.

Stop lying. You have been given ample evidence by our resident evolutionist biologist (Naroia).

Talk is cheap, How about some evidence

See above.

The problem for you is that DNA proves you wrong.

of all the arrogance!

By the way why don't you use your spell check? Also when you want to end a quote you must use the following form: ([/quote])

 

[OllieFranz]

Instead of pretending that using the word "alter" instead of the word "change" answers our questions, how about describing the nature of the barrier that allows a mutation in the gene to alter a trait but does not allow a mutation of the gene to create a new trait. The people who work with genetic matreial (DNA) cannot find such a barrier.

Take and albino. The mutation cause a change in the skin and eyes. The mutation did not give the albino the skin and eyes, it simply ALTERED those traits.

Again you are making undefined vocabulary substitute for any attempt at an explanation.

"Alter" and "change" are synonyms. And you have not defined a large enough difference in them to make the distinction you are making. In fact, you have not defined any difference between them.

And you still have not explained why a mutation can change an organism by altering a trait, but not why it can't change an organism by adding or deleting a trait.

I have explained how some mutations create new alleles of existing genes, and this is why the kind of changes you allow happen, and how other mutations create new genes or destroy old ones. Don't you think these mutations will affect the organisms? And yet you deny the kinds of changes they would cause. What natural forces do you know of that would prevent these changes? Why do scientists who study these mutations not encounter these forces? And when they find these mutations and describe their effects are they delusional?

Your responses in the second half of the post bear no relationship to anything I have said, or to any science I know of. I refuse to debate nonsense.

 

[Doveaman]

Indeed. And it does nothing to indicate whether the dish is forming or not.

Agreed. It was merely an example.

Note that we have an event horizon which we cannot observe past (allegedly).
That does nothing to speak about what happened before the event horizon.

Example (one of many I can imagine):

Imagine that our universe is described by that line.
The straight line at the bottom is the observable time-line of it, where it has a structure that we can exist within.
The event horizon (big bang event) would be at the left end of the straight line, the end of 'human-allowing' period would be at the right end of the straight line.

Then the curve follows and brings us back to the event horizon.

This would produce the same observations as the ones we have, but yet it would lack a start.
In fact, it would also lack an end and be cyclic!

I'd love to read what your thoughts are about this.

It’s an interesting concept.

But since you mentioned a big bang event on the left end I would assume there was once a single point (singularity) from which the time line expanded to the right to form the universe. The curved line would simply represent us humans on the right end peering back into the beginning/big bang through our telescopes.

I am of the view, however, that the universe was created as it is today, but with fewer galaxies of course. My view is that God converted a measure of His divine energy into natural energy to form energized space. A measure of this natural space energy was then converted (and still being converted) throughout space into stars, planets and galaxies to form the universe.

A universe originally created at its present size would explain why we continue to discover mature galaxies throughout space and much deeper in space than the Big Bang model predicts:

Mature Galaxies in Young Universe At Odds with Theory

Newly discovered mature galaxy cluster, revised big bang theory?

Hubble has spotted an ancient galaxy that shouldn't exist.

Mature Galaxies Defy Big Bang

The event horizon

Okay, if I was to assume the Big Bang did happen and the universe is expanding with galaxies moving away from us, should we not expect that the galaxies farthest away from us would have expanded beyond the particle horizon and are no longer visible?

If this is the case, how can we possible measure and know the size and age of the universe?

If the universe is measured by the distant light we can observe, what about the even more distant light we can no longer observe that has expanded beyond the particle horizon?

 

[Doveaman]

Evolution does not predict a crocoduck.

What about a crocoturtle or crocofrog, or even a crocosnake?

 

[Doveaman]

You can't just say 'It's true! It's true!' You need to provide some evidence to back up your claims.

'Many scientists and evolutionists agree that reality is not limited to the physical.'

Really? Who are they? How do you know 'most' feel this way?

Did I say "most" or "many"?

Did you not quote me yourself?

They are called theistic scientists and theistic evolutionists.

They believe in the natural as well as the supernatural (though not all of them).

Since when does your religion encourage bearing false witness? That's a new one to me.

It's new to me too.

 

[USincognito]

What about a crocoturtle or crocofrog, or even a crocosnake?

No.

 

[Elendur]

It’s an interesting concept.

But since you mentioned a big bang event on the left end I would assume there was once a single point (singularity) from which the time line expanded to the right to form the universe. The curved line would simply represent us humans on the right end peering back into the beginning/big bang through our telescopes.

No, the curve would (/could) simply represent a state of the universe where time doesn't work as it apparently does now.
EDIT: (heck, it could even represent the state where god resets the universe)

Here's another:

Each line could represent the birth and death of a universe, which then follows by another (completely different).

This one would have no beginning nor end for the meta-verse, but for the sub-verses (the start could have been represented as the big bang in our line).

I am of the view, however, that the universe was created as it is today, but with fewer galaxies of course. My view is that God converted a measure of His divine energy into natural energy to form energized space. A measure of this natural space energy was then converted (and still being converted) throughout space into stars, planets and galaxies to form the universe.

Ok.

A universe originally created at its present size would explain why we continue to discover mature galaxies throughout space and much deeper in space than the Big Bang model predicts:

Mature Galaxies in Young Universe At Odds with Theory

Newly discovered mature galaxy cluster, revised big bang theory?

Hubble has spotted an ancient galaxy that shouldn't exist.

Mature Galaxies Defy Big Bang

Assuming if explains that, does it predict anything?

Okay, if I was to assume the Big Bang did happen and the universe is expanding with galaxies moving away from us, should we not expect that the galaxies farthest away from us would have expanded beyond the particle horizon and are no longer visible?

The horizon is moving as well, if I've understood it correctly.

If this is the case, how can we possible measure and know the size and age of the universe?

Backtracking mathematical models is usually something that does the trick.

If the universe is measured by the distant light we can observe, what about the even more distant light we can no longer observe that has expanded beyond the particle horizon?

Is there anything that exists beyond it?
We have a theory that proposes that it doesn't (again, if I've understood it correctly).

 

[frogman2x]

Wow..........you know, it looks awfully pompous and arrogant when someone makes it really clear that they know very little about a subject, but criticise it nevertheless........

I have not criticized anything or anybody. I ask some questions and made some statements but evidently you don't know enough to answer them or refute them. Instead you changed the subject. Now woud you like to show me how much you know? If not, I will understand.

 

[mzungu]

I have not criticized anything or anybody. I ask some questions and made some statements but evidently you don't know enough to answer them or refute them. Instgead yu changed ths subject. Now oudl yoou like to show me how much you know? If not, I will understand.

You constantly demand evidence and when it is provided you simply ignore it. You have claimed to know more about biology than our resident evolutionist biology; especially when you have no formal education on the subject. Your arrogance astounds me.

 

[frogman2x]

Mutations do cause change in species. They do not change one species into another. You really have no idea what you are talking about do you.

Evidentlay you have not idea what mutations do an do not do.

English is not your mother tongue. You obviously do not know what the word common means. We did not evolve from chimpanzees. We did not evolve from Lemurs. We have a COMMON ancestor.

Wonderful. You do know a little something but you still have training wheels on your bike. So tel me wht did we evolve from?

Stop lying. You have been given ample evidence by our resident evolutionist biologist (Naroia).

Stop lying and tell me what biological evidence Naroia has presented. I acknowledge that Naroia is well qualified to speak on the subject but to date she/he has only referenced studies that says this or that happened but deid not include the critical bitg of evidence HOW IT COULD HAPEN.

 

[lasthero]

Evidentlay you have not idea what mutations do an do not do.

What, exactly, do you think a mutation is and how do you think it works?

 

[SkyWriting]

In the reality that we know, we don't tend to observe supernatural causes either, much less complex, immaterial, unembodied, intelligent agents.

God is Spirit, so as you have observed, is invisible and not material.

I don't claim God is scientifically observable. But I observe that nature does not
create anything new from nothing....yet here we are.
Thus our very existence proves God even if we can't use the results to analyze the Creator of it.
Like if we were made of "Cake" we'd have a hard time using "Cake" tools
to analyze the cake mixing process and baking steps of an oven.
We can't find any CAKE god, because the baker is not made of cake.

 

[frogman2x]

What, exactly, do you think a mutation is and how do you think it works?

They alter a characteristic the the kid would have gotten without the mutation. They are not a mechanism for evolution.

Now tell me what you know.

 

[mzungu]

They alter a characteristic the the kid would have gotten without the mutation. They are not a mechanism for evolution.

Now tell me what you know.

Mutations bring about change in a living thing. Evolution is CHANGE. Now unless you understand that then we have nothing more to discuss as your knowledge of the English language is inadequate and there is no way anyone can explain to you how evolution works.

 

[lasthero]

They alter a characteristic the the kid would have gotten without the mutation.

Why do you keep using the word 'alter'? It's like you're afraid to use the word 'change', but 'change' and 'alter' mean the same thing. It's not fooling anyone.

And it is a mechanism for evolution.

Mechanisms of change

 

[SkyWriting]

What, exactly, do you think a mutation is and how do you think it works?

Mutations are fairly rare events. Most variation is within the confines of what is allowed by design. You and your siblings are natural variations of your parents DNA. You may call your sister a mutant, but it's not accurate. A certain variation is allowed by design.

Were that not true, we'd all expose ourselves to radioactivity for the betterment of the species.

 

[frogman2x]

Again you are making undefined vocabulary substitute for any attempt at an explanation.

"Alter" and "change" are synonyms. And you have not defined a large enough difference in them to make the distinction you are making. In fact, you have not defined any difference between them.

Actually they don't. Change means to change one thing for another. Alter meant to change soemthing already in existence.

The mutation of an albino did not change something and give it skin, it altered the skin it woudl have gotten without the mutation.

And you still have not explained why a mutation can change an organism by altering a trait, but not why it can't change an organism by adding or deleting a trait.

The bottom line is that mutations cannot change a species into a different species. If you want to use "change" and "alter" the same way fine.

I have explained how some mutations create new alleles of existing genes, and this is why the kind of changes you allow happen, and how other mutations create new genes or destroy old ones. Don't you think these mutations will affect the organisms? And yet you deny the kinds of changes they would cause. What natural forces do you know of that would prevent these changes? Why do scientists who study these mutations not encounter these forces? And when they find these mutations and describe their effects are they delusional?

I have not denied anything except mutation are a mechanism for evolution. Do you have any evidence that anything in the paragraph above has resulted in a change of species?

Your responses in the second half of the post bear no relationship to anything I have said, or to any science I know of. I refuse to debate nonsense.

That's fine. Have a nice day. I would like you to provided the evidence that mutations, and take as many as you like, have ever resulted in a change of species. If you can't do that then what you have said is nonsense as far as mutations being a mechanims for evolution is concerned.

 

[lasthero]

Change means to change one thing for another. Alter meant to change soemthing already in existence.

No, it doesn't.


changedchang·ing

javascript:void(0);



Full Definition of CHANGE

transitive verb
1
a : to make different in some particular : alter <never bothered to change the will>

If you alter something, you've changed it. It's different than it was before. How are you not getting this?

 

[lasthero]

Mutations are fairly rare events.

No, they are not. Everyone has mutations. What you're thinking of are extremely drastic ones, like the one in your picture. But smaller, less obvious ones are common and present in all organisms.

Human Genetic Mutations: Understanding Genetic Mutations May Help Tackle Diseases

Were that not true, we'd all expose ourselves to radioactivity for the betterment of the species.

Don't see how you made that conclusion.

 

[lasthero]

The bottom line is that mutations cannot change a species into a different species. If you want to use "change" and "alter" the same way fine.

Some More Observed Speciation Events