juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 72
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
For the purposes of hexadecimal colour coding, the letters are numbers.
I actually prefer to use examples closer to real world experimental results- adaptation with limits, like a ceiling fan for example.
It's colorful, but in the real world, evolutionists prefer charts and diagrams that show branch-offs, tees and splits.
In other words, very specific places where one animal starts to become another.
are you saying two mutations cant occur from one generation to another? because they can.
This is a nice mental exercise. But that is all it is. It can never go far enough in reality. People are still TRYING to make new species on very low level life. It has never been succeeded.
Except for the fact that polyploidy is not looked upon as a viable option to create the complexity of life today. In the case of the beneficial mutation assertion, delving deeper into the mechanisms at play we find that beneficial outcomes do not automatically surmount to the type of pattern which would be required to create complex structures. The only thing is on the surface, it looks nice and pretty. Just on the surface it looks nice and pretty. Its the same thing for the "beneficial upon beneficial mutation persisting indefinitely will create the increasing amount of complexity witnessed today". Merely superficial compared to the in depth study showing that loss of function mutations dominate adaptation and a gain-of-function mutation would be an attempt at balancing the mounting deficit being created by loss-of-function mutation.Ta-da, you now understand polyploidy.
Applied to real world testing this can merely attempt to delineate on adaptation, not microbe to man.If we were to expand this analogy in order to not only illustrate gradual change resulting in distinct forms but to also show how the multichromatic history of an original population changed over time then
Unlike this drawing, all types of harmful mutations do not meet a dead end. Detrimental mutations far surpass any benefit from a mutation. It is dished to creationists that natural selection weeds out the detrimental mutations, and what you are left with is a spick-and-span genome impervious to any degradation. But natural selection is unable to weed out what it cannot touch. Not all detrimental mutations are severely felt at the phenotypic level and what you have is an accumulation of deleterious effects. This is genomic version of "wear and tear". One example given was the case of the "princess and the peas" but another is the fact that you car doesn't just break down on the spot. If it does break down, it is a problem felt at a level which impairs normal functioning. You would then you bring it to the mechanic to amend it, but during the time when you have no problems with it, it is still degrading.I don't see why that would be a problem (other than it isn't what the original post was trying to show). It would probably look something like this:
(source)
Because we don't have a single digit number for the numbers 10-15, so we use A-F. It's more convenient for numbers to be represented in a different way in computing.Then why do I see letters AND numbers for colors?
Except for the fact that polyploidy is not looked upon as a viable option to create the complexity of life today.
In the case of the beneficial mutation assertion, delving deeper into the mechanisms at play we find that beneficial outcomes do not automatically surmount to the type of pattern which would be required to create complex structures.
Merely superficial compared to the in depth study showing that loss of function mutations dominate adaptation and a gain-of-function mutation would be an attempt at balancing the mounting deficit being created by loss-of-function mutation.
So while Darwinists have cited beneficial mutations as the mechanism responsible for the creation of life today, what they have done is confined the proposed mechanism to a definition which outlines an inconsequential phenomena thus diminishing and ultimately casting out that explanation.
It's the same thing with speciation. Though it revolves around the definition of a mechanism which supposedly contributes to the complexity of life , by attributing it to a phenomenon like polyploidy, which does practically nothing in terms of adaptation-mutation-increase in complexity,
speciation, which now means a change where practically nothing happens, can be relegated by definition.
Then why do I see letters AND numbers for colors?
Because we don't have a single digit number for the numbers 10-15, so we use A-F. It's more convenient for numbers to be represented in a different way in computing.
Basically, it's easier to convert between hexadecimal (base 16) numbers and the binary numbers that the computer uses internally.juvenissun said:Then why don't just use 10, 11,... 15?
no, i only show it's lacking.
it's excellent for explaining how we get different races
No it's you who is having trouble with inbetweens because your brain is not in gear, you're not thinking straight.ok,
show something real meaningful like from English to Chinese?
what's the matter?
having trouble withthe inbetweens?
show something real meaningful like from English to Chinese?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?