DNA: Mutations, Versatility and Probability

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Without attempting to estimate the age of fossils, it is still reasonable to assume that life on earth existed before Adam (I wish to retract my fossil record "proof" comment in post 115). This reasonable assumption is based on the fact that no evidence of human life has ever been found in the same geological strata as dinosaurs, for example ... or trilobites.
Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that dinosaurs and trilobites (along with countless other animals) existed before human beings.

Conversely, it would be decidedly UNREASONABLE to conclude from fossil evidence that humans, dinosaurs and trilobites existed at the same time.

Which is higher scripture or man's knowledge?
I say scripture.

I think its perfectly reasonable given what scripture says that dinosaurs lived right alongside mankind, that the global flood dwindled there number and that mankind killed most of them off shortly after the end of the flood.

I see no reason why these two scriptures can't be describing a land and 'sea type dinosaurs.

Job 40 Behemoth
15 “Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you

Leviathan Job 41


Again which fossil evidence? Whose evidence? You expect that atheistic scientist to ever say anything else? Meanwhile you ignore creation scientists or any other scientist who brings up issues? You have chosen to go with those who fit your view. I decided over 30 years ago to start looking at the other side and am glad I did because now the Bible makes sense and it all fits.
If you were really interested in evidence you would take the time to study each side but like most people you quickly slid into the secular camp because its easy.
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Easy to say, but impossible to prove. For example, it would be utterly impossible for anyone to prove that God created the earth and all life in six literal days.
You believe Genesis is literal, but your belief is based on nothing more than an assumption (so your criticism of science making assumptions rings a bit hollow)..


Furthermore, as former YEC, Glenn Morton, pointed out (see post 109), after becoming a geophysicist he discovered that NONE of the YEC science he'd been taught turned out to be true. That doesn't say much for the credibility of YEC claims.

But feel free to believe in a young earth - it's not a sin. I accept the Biblical creation verses as theological truth, but not as scientific truth.

Do you believe in God? Can you prove God?
 
Upvote 0

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
I have seen that nature, genetics and DNA have a remarkable propensity for ingenuity and inventiveness ... Wolves apparently developed into dogs over time
Darwinist scientists claim that the evolutionary process that allows a dog to be produced from a wolf is the same evolutionary process that produced the history and diversification of life on earth.

These scientists also claim that, because they understand the evolutionary process that allows a dog to be produced from a wolf, they therefore understand the evolutionary process that produced the history and diversification of life on earth.

But if you gave the evolutionary scientists of the world the task of producing a eukaryote from a prokaryote ... or an amphibian from a fish ... or a reptile from an amphibian, they'd be completely clueless; they wouldn't even know where to start.

Me thinks these scientists don't understand nearly as much about evolution as they think they do.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,244
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,075.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Darwinist scientists claim that the evolutionary process that allows a dog to be produced from a wolf is the same evolutionary process that produced the history and diversification of life on earth.

These scientists also claim that, because they understand the evolutionary process that allows a dog to be produced from a wolf, they therefore understand the evolutionary process that produced the history and diversification of life on earth.

But if you gave the evolutionary scientists of the world the task of producing a eukaryote from a prokaryote ... or an amphibian from a fish ... or a reptile from an amphibian, they'd be completely clueless; they wouldn't even know where to start.

Me thinks these scientists don't understand nearly as much about evolution as they think they do.

Scientists also cannot produce dogs from wolves. Do you think that dogs didn't evolve from wolves too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sfs
Upvote 0

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
Scientists also cannot produce dogs from wolves. Do you think that dogs didn't evolve from wolves too?
Scientists know how to produce (evolve) a dog from a wolf, but as for knowing how to produce (evolve) a eukaryote from a prokaryote ... or an amphibian from a fish ... or a reptile from an amphibian ... scientists don't even know how to get to first base.

Can they explain how evolution produced the history of life on earth? Of course not.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,244
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,075.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Scientists know how to produce (evolve) a dog from a wolf

Scientists cannot produce a dog from a wolf.

If you think this can be done in a lab by scientists, please indulge me and explain how it is you think they could do this.

This finds me of an old YouTuber I remember from some time ago:

Feels consistently disappointed by continuing bold claims without clear justification*
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
Scientists cannot produce a dog from a wolf.
Scientists at least know how to produce a dog from a wolf. But ask them how to produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote ... or an amphibian from a fish ... or a reptile from an amphibian ... and they haven't got the foggiest; they wouldn't even know where to start.
Yet they claim to know how life evolved on this planet. What a joke.

Btw, no one needed Darwinian theory to figure out how to produce a dog from a wolf.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,244
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,075.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Scientists at least know how to produce a dog from a wolf.

I disagree. I would say that scientists do not know how to produce a dog from a wolf. If you think they do, then explain how you think this would be possible.

How exactly do you think they/we would ever do such a thing? And if you really want to be daring, I'd love to hear how such a process would be any different if they/we were to attempt to produce a bird from a reptile or an amphibian from a fish.

I'm not particularly surprised by your lack of detail on the topic. I have to say it, and no personal offense, but I suspect that you won't be able to answer such questions.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Buzzard3
Upvote 0

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
I would say that scientists do not know how to produce a dog from a wolf.
Humans used artificial selection to evolve various dog breeds from wolves thousands of years ago, but you claim today's scientists don't know how they did it.
That's a fascinating argument.
If you think they do, then explain how you think this would be possible
Artificial selection. Trying asking a dog-breeder. It ain't rocket science.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,244
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,075.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Humans used artificial selection to evolve various dog breeds from wolves thousands of years ago, but you claim today's scientists don't know how they did it.
That's the funniest argument I've heard for ages. Thanks for the laugh!

Artificial selection. Trying asking a dog-breeder. It ain't rocket science.

Just because species evolved a certain way in the past, doesn't mean that the same evolutionary trajectory could be accomplished again by scientists. Because of course, mutations are random.

Unless you incorporate gene editing crispr technology in some fashion. Think about fish and dolphins. Both naturally selected to succeed in an aquatic environment, they evolved at different times but under some similar environmental pressures. Yet, despite some similarities, they're completely different animals. And this is what would happen if scientists attempted to re create dogs. It would turn out as convergent evolution moreso than the production of a true dog.

So, artificial selection is an invalid answer.

Plus, realistically nobody has the time or budget for a 5-10,000 year gene editing experiment. For practical purposes, scientists cannot produce a dog from a wolf, no more could we fly a satellite to alpha centauri despite theoretically knowing how to do it today.

But despite the above, I'll fancy your response just for entertainment purposes.

If your response to the question is thousands of years of artificial selection (ignoring the reality that scientists couldn't control mutations that drove this evolution without active gene editing, and we don't have thousands of years and a budget of infinite funds), then why wouldn't this same multi-thousand year gene editing experiment not work on producing reptiles from amphibians or birds from reptiles? On what basis do you think a dog from a wolf is any more or less possible than a bird from a reptile? Surely you've seen raptor theropods with feathers and surely you've seen tetrapods with gills and scales.

If a tetrapod has gills, has scales, has fins, then why wouldn't an infinite amount of time, money, and gene editing technology, be sufficient to turn a fish into that tetrapod?


Bird-like dinosaurs

The Fish–Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations | Evolution: Education and Outreach | Full Text
 
Last edited:
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

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
Just because species evolved a certain way in the past, doesn't mean that the same evolutionary trajectory could be accomplished again by scientists. Because of course, mutations are random.

Unless you incorporate gene editing crispr technology in some fashion. Think about fish and dolphins. Both naturally selected to succeed in an aquatic environment, they evolved at different times but under some similar environmental pressures. Yet, despite some similarities, they're completely different animals. And this is what would happen if scientists attempted to re create dogs. It would turn out as convergent evolution moreso than the production of a true dog.

So, artificial selection is an invalid answer.

Plus, realistically nobody has the time or budget for a 5-10,000 year gene editing experiment. For practical purposes, scientists cannot produce a dog from a wolf, no more could we fly a satellite to alpha centauri despite theoretically knowing how to do it today.

But despite the above, I'll fancy your response just for entertainment purposes.

If your response to the question is thousands of years of artificial selection (ignoring the reality that scientists couldn't control mutations that drove this evolution without active gene editing, and we don't have thousands of years and a budget of infinite funds), then why wouldn't this same multi-thousand year gene editing experiment not work on producing reptiles from amphibians or birds from reptiles? On what basis do you think a dog from a wolf is any more or less possible than a bird from a reptile? Surely you've seen raptor theropods with feathers and surely you've seen tetrapods with gills and scales.

If a tetrapod has gills, has scales, has fins, then why wouldn't an infinite amount of time, money, and gene editing technology, be sufficient to turn a fish into that tetrapod?


Bird-like dinosaurs

The Fish–Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations | Evolution: Education and Outreach | Full Text
The point is, since no one can produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote ... or an amphibian from a fish ... or a reptile from an amphibian ... and no one was there to see how those (alleged) evolutions occurred ... so no one can know how those (alleged) evolutions occurred.
Ditto for all the other (alleged) macro-evolutions throughout history.
Theorising and arriving at the best scientific explanation is not the same as knowing.

So scientists who claim to "know" what process was responsible for the history of life on earth are talking garbage. Those dreamers don't fool me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,244
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,075.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The point is, since no one can produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote ... or an amphibian from a fish ... or a reptile from an amphibian ... and no one was there to see how those (alleged) evolutions occurred ... so no one can know how those (alleged) evolutions occurred.
Ditto for all the other (alleged) macro-evolutions throughout history.
Theorising and arriving at the best scientific explanation is not the same as knowing.

So scientists who claim to "know" what process was responsible for the history of life on earth are talking garbage. Those dreamers don't fool me.

And no one has any record of dogs evolving from wolves either. So how is it that you feel you know this happened? Or do you think such a thing is also merely in our imaginations?

The reality is that there is no logical difference between dogs evolving from wolves, and birds evolving from reptiles or reptiles from amphibians etc. No more is there a logical difference between me taking one step out the front door, ten steps down the road, or 100 steps to the supermarket. There is no reason that one could be possible, but not the other. On the contrary, all evidence we have indicates that in both instances, or all instances, have occured via biological evolution, involving mutations, natural selection and common descent.

By not giving an explanation for how a dog can evolve from a wolf, but a bird couldn't evolve from something like an archaeopteryx, you aren't addressing the clear logical flaw in your position.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,244
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,075.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And no one has any record of dogs evolving from wolves either. So how is it that you feel you know this happened? Or do you think such a thing is also merely in our imaginations?

The reality is that there is no logical difference between dogs evolving from wolves, and birds evolving from reptiles or reptiles from amphibians etc. No more is there a logical difference between me taking one step out the front door, ten steps down the road, or 100 steps to the supermarket. There is no reason that one could be possible, but not the other. On the contrary, all evidence we have indicates that in both instances, or all instances, have occured via biological evolution, involving mutations, natural selection and common descent.

By not giving an explanation for how a dog can evolve from a wolf, but a bird couldn't evolve from something like an archaeopteryx, you aren't addressing the clear logical flaw in your position.

Screenshot_20220520-224126~2.png


Here's a nice mashup of dinosaurs (left) and birds (right).

Who here would argue that a dog could evolve from a wolf, but somehow a bird couldn't evolve from a reptile (dinosaur)? A 5-year-old could do this one because birds and reptiles prehistorically we're practically one in the same. Same with all the other groups.

And all the evidence suggests that reptiles over time gave birth to birds. Just like wolves gave birth to dogs. And that's why their DNA is so similar, just like we share similar DNA to our parents. That's why reptiles predate birds in the fossil record with bones of ancestors being deeper than descendants, just like how our parents/ancestors are buried in cemeteries in earth below us.

That's why, as the video above noted, you'll never find a mammal with feathers or a bird with nipples, because mammals and birds are of separate lineages, yet you can still find birds with reptilians teeth, human beings born with tails and wisdom teeth that don't fit in their mouths, we get goosebumps when cold air blows on us, just like other animals get goosebumps which raises their hair to keep them warm.

Why do whales have feet bones but modern fish do not? Well, because whales descended from land animals, hence why they breathe air, which is why their DNA is more similar to a hippo than to any fish.

We could go over dozens, if not hundreds of these types of evidences. Collectively, It's all just too obvious.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sfs
Upvote 0

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
The reality is that there is no logical difference between dogs evolving from wolves, and birds evolving from reptiles or reptiles from amphibians etc
Easy to say, but impossible to prove. A "reality" that exists only in your mind.

Your statement of faith is as scientifically meaningless as a YEC stating that the earth was created in six days.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
Why do whales have feet bones but modern fish do not? Well, because whales descended from land animals, hence why they breathe air, which is why their DNA is more similar to a hippo than to any fish.
If you know how evolution works, please provide a step-by-step explanation of how a whale evolved a breathing-hole in the top of its head, including the role natural selection played in this (alleged) evolution and the environmental pressures involved.

Then all you have to do is demonstrate that you're version of events is factual.
We could go over dozens, if not hundreds of these types of evidences. Collectively, It's all just too obvious.
I'm not disputing that a form of "evolution" has occurred. I'm disputing the claim that science understands/knows the process responsible for that "evolution".
 
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

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,244
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,075.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Easy to say, but impossible to prove. A "reality" that exists only in your mind.

Your statement of faith is as meaningless as a YEC stating that the earth was created in six days.

Remember though, you are the one who claimed that scientists could create dogs from wolves. Then further claimed that this is somehow different from birds evolving from reptiles or amphibians from fish, reptiles from amphibians etc., Yet as we can see, no justification for this distinction was provided.

Now all of a sudden the onus is allegedly on me to come up with this imaginary barrier that you have proposed out of your own imaginary ideas, not mine.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,244
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,075.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm not disputing that a form of "evolution" has occurred. I'm disputing the claim that science understands/knows the process responsible for that "evolution".

It sounds to me like you are disputing that evolution (of any form) has occured. Are you saying that you do think that birds evolved from reptiles, but just by some alternative means beyond the ones we see at play involving a dog's evolution from a wolf?

I suspect that most people believe that more is at play in the evolution of life on earth. Our theories are ever developing and becoming more and more fine tuned, and discoveries 50 years from now would increase our understanding of how dogs evolved from wolves and how bird evolved from reptiles, among other things. But currently, there is no logical reason to believe that the mechanisms known today would be sufficient to explain dogs from wolves but somehow wouldn't be sufficient for birds from reptiles.

There is no known magical barrier between the idea of speciation versus the evolution of new genus or families etc. And personally, scientifically I don't think there is any reason to suggest that there is one, and theologically I don't see any reason to either.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
It sounds to me like you are disputing that evolution (of any form) has occured.
I just told you that I don't dispute that some form of "evolution" has occurred. By "evolution" I'm referring to a process that includes a supernatural element.
Are you saying that you do think that birds evolved from reptiles, but just by some alternative means beyond the ones we see at play involving a dog's evolution from a wolf?
I don't know if birds evolved from reptiles and I don't offer any explanations for the fossil record. No one can be certain about what, happened, let alone be certain about how it happened.

Scientists can theorize and huff'n'puff and massage their egos all they like, but what can actually be known about the history of life on earth is very limited
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,244
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,075.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I just told you that I don't dispute that some form of "evolution" has occurred. By "evolution" I'm referring to a process that includes a supernatural element.

This, to me, sounds like saying "I don't dispute that I was born from my mother, but by birth, I'm referring to a process that includes a supernatural element."

Of course there always is a supernatural element to the creation of life, but typically such a comment is referring not only to a supernatural element, but also to...a miracle, or something that defies natural law.

My thought is, God made natural laws. God made gravity and magnetism, He made biological processes of a babies birth, He made the stars and life in earth etc. And so, I don't see any reason to arbitrarily inject a miracle that defies natural systems, because even the natural systems themselves are of Gods creation.

What does it really matter if God used a natural process to make us, versus breaking His own created laws to make us? Is there something wrong with the idea that God might use natural processes to carry out His will? Just like with a baby being born, God gave men and women a natural process ability to make babies. Is there something wrong with the idea that a natural process could bring a human about as part of God's will?

Scientifically, we know that it's unreasonable to arbitrarily insert a brick wall between the evolution of wolves to dogs and the evolution of reptiles to birds. Because there just is no morphological or biological barrier we know of that would randomly stop animals from evolving indefinitely. Just like walking down the street. There is no known reason that a person who takes one step couldn't later take another.

And so scientifically, it's just not reasonable to put in this arbitrary miracle.

And theologically, as noted above, I just don't see what the big deal is about the idea that God might use natural processes to create us.
 
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

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
The question remains:
If someone cannot demonstrate that they know how and what evolutionary mechanisms produced the macro-transitions evident on the fossil record, can they honestly claim to know how evolution works?
I don't think so.


[
 
Upvote 0