How many steps does it take?

[Kylie]

Although I have a certain element of faith....I also have science.

Are you claiming evolutionism has no faith aspect to it?

I am claiming that when it comes to science, if there is no actual evidence, there is no reason to accept it. I am not aware of any scientist who accepts as scientific fact something for which there is no evidence.

 

[Kylie]

Talk about a dodgeball reply.

I'm sorry, I didn't think it was unreasonable to ask for a definition of the thing we were meant to be talking about.

 

[Kylie]

I think the truly 'faithful' have a hard time understanding the difference between their own 'Faith' - acceptance without evidence - and the 'faith' of the scientist - that science has a pretty good track record in filling in gaps in our knowledge and that the gaps that remain are getting smaller and smaller and that at some point, many of these gaps will be filled in completely.

Although I would hesitate to believe any scientist who holds any "scientific" viewpoint on faith. If it's really science, faith is not needed, since there is plenty of evidence.

 

[-57]

I did.

The answer is that the question is phony baloney strawman BS.

Shocking that you did not understand this in the first place.

Is that your style? I disagree with you....so it must be because I don't understand it? Seriously dude?

 

[-57]

Um, no - your commentary gave me that conclusion.

Let me help you out:

"Quantitatively, how many changes must take place for a cow to become a whale?"

You replied:

"Their problem is...trying to show it can actually work. Showing how the DNA code can change, increase its information via a process of random chance mutations.

I've been asking for literally decades on how mutations add up and have never received an answer."


But see.... the 3rd post in this thread answered that specific question:

"Who ever said whales evolved from cows?"

Get it?

NOBODY ever claimed that whales evolved from cows. The only person I am aware of that ever mentioned such a thing was Berlinski. Berlinski claimed to have done 'calculations' showing that there are at least 50,000 changes that have to be accounted for... But mysteriously, he has never presented these "calculations", nor has he ever provided even a partial list of some of these 50,000 changes.

Get it YET?

OK - you think it is a good question - so do lots of non-biologist creationists.

But it is a simple strawman fallacy.

Berlinski's stupid question would be like me asking a creationist to explain why Yahweh is depicted as being 50 feet tall with blue skin. And when you answer - 'Thats a bad question - you are thinking of Hinduism, don't you know anything about Christianity?' and I respond, "Is that your style? I disagree with you....so it must be because I don't understand it? Seriously dude?"

I kinda think you don't get it. It really doesn't matter what the evos think the whale evolved from. Cow, rhino.... four legged wolf like animal such as Andrewsarchus....
The question still is, how the DNA code can change, increase its information via a process of random chance mutations.

That you failed to explain.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"Showing how the DNA code can change, increase its information via a process of random chance mutations. " I would love to know more about this.

Since the dna stuff is used to deceive the whole world,
why would anyone seeking YHWH'S KINGDOM
want to know anything about this ? (it is all from fraudulent sources, and the opposite of Godly)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

YHWH THE CREATOR knows everything.
What HE says cannot politely be repeated here.
Search online for correct answers.

 

[-57]

I kinda think I do and that you are just desperate to prop up your crumbling worldview.

Berlinski's question is a strawman, and either you are too unfamiliar with evolution to understand that, or you were OK with Berlinski's dishonest sham.




Motoo Kimura demonstrated mathematically that adaptive evolution increases information in the genome in 1961. Creationists have been ignoring it ever since - first because there was too much math in his paper, then because their creationist hero Dembski tried to use the 'information' argument despite the fact that it had been pre-refuted.

https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~yss/Papers/Kimura1961.pdf



Is this how the creationist admits that their 'gotcha' question was really a bogus strawman?

Explain why it had to have been an "increase" in information to get a whale from its ancestor?

Explain how you know this.

Explain how many 'trait changes' would have been required.

Explain how you came to that number.

Explain how those changes would have occurred genetically-phenotypically.
And be specific - this is where the creationist, if they try to address any of these questions at all, really show how little they understand the relationship between genotype and phenotype.

Like I said - gotcha questions only work if you sort of already know the answer. Creationists never seem to be in that position.

So, it sounds like your saying just one mutation changed a 4 legged animal into a whale.
JUdging from your response I would have to think you don't really have the ability to show how mutations add up over a species progeny...changing the traits...by increasing the DNA information contained in the code that produces traits.

 

[Kylie]

Don't forget, you still have to tell us what counts as one change.

If the animal develops webbing between the toes, is that one change, or is it a separate change for each space between the toes that it grows in?

 

[-57]

Don't forget, you still have to tell us what counts as one change.

If the animal develops webbing between the toes, is that one change, or is it a separate change for each space between the toes that it grows in?

A change would be a mutation that changes the DNA code that effects a trait in a way that enhancess the fitness of an organism.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

A change would be a mutation that changes the DNA code that effects a trait in a way that enhancess the fitness of an organism.

Considering...... hmmmmm..... yes.......... no worries....... except

it never happened. No reason in heaven nor on earth to think it every would or could. Except maybe on the disney channel....

 

[-57]

Considering...... hmmmmm..... yes.......... no worries....... except

it never happened. No reason in heaven nor on earth to think it every would or could. Except maybe on the disney channel....

The odds say NO. 3.5 billion base pairs....very few mutations would be considered as "beneficial".....and the need for it to occur again and again and again.

The requirement for a precise folding of the protein....happening at the right time in the right place. Yes, the Disney channel is where it could happen.

Here's a video I think you might enjoy....it shows extreme complexity.

Here's another if you enjoyed the first video...how could these amazing machines evolve through a process of random chance?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Here's a video I think you might enjoy....it shows extreme complexity.

hahaha
MY TINKERTOYS when I was a baby !
.
.
.

(just 1st pic)

 

[sfs]

The question still is, how the DNA code can change, increase its information via a process of random chance mutations.

That you failed to explain.

Which part do you not understand? Do you not understand the biochemical process by which mutations occur? Do you not understand how information is measured? Do you not understand why some mutations increase information?

 

[-57]

is that really what it sounds like? Perhaps you could quote my post wherein I imply this.



Judging from your posts in general, I conclude that if I somehow did have a map of each and every mutation you would find a way to ignore it or dismiss it or move the goal posts.

I take it that the Kimura paper was over your head, and you are now just in 'protect the Faith' mode.

Once again you posted a lot of nothing.
Will they ever have a proven map? The answer is no. Evolutionism doesn't have the ability to make such increases in information so that it can be mapped.

Did you watch the videos I presented?

 

[-57]

Which part do you not understand? Do you not understand the biochemical process by which mutations occur? Do you not understand how information is measured? Do you not understand why some mutations increase information?

Apparently I don't ....even more suprisingly is apparently neither do you...or else you would be able to demonstrate the steps and how they add innformation to the genetic code.

Did you watch the videos I presented?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Once again you posted a lot of nothing.
Will they ever have a proven map? The answer is no. Evolutionism doesn't have the ability to make such increases in information so that it can be mapped.

You are incredibly inconsistent in your use of the word 'evolutionsim'. And how do you even know that you are right?

 

[-57]

You are incredibly inconsistent in your use of the word 'evolutionsim'. And how do you even know that you are right?

Perhaps you would like to show all of us how mutations add up and increase information in an organism progeny. Show us why you have such faith in evolutionism.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Perhaps you would like to show all of us how mutations add up and increase information in an organism progeny. Show us why you have such faith in evolutionism.

Bacteria evolving the ability to metabolize citrate, along with the increase in cell size sounds like mutations 'adding up' to me.
ETA: Not that you'll actually care since you still say that I'm wrong and equate my accepting of evolutionary theory as being on a par with your religious beliefs.

 

[Kylie]

A change would be a mutation that changes the DNA code that effects a trait in a way that enhancess the fitness of an organism.

Okay, so let's say we have a centipede, and there is a mutation that creates sensory hairs on its body segments. Does this count as one mutation, or is it a separate mutation for each body segment the hairs appear on?