Question for creationists only: What is the theory of evolution?

[Ophiolite]

Evolution assumes the fittest selection is made.

I don't even know what that means. Would you like to rephrase it? I can take a wild guess at what it might mean, but I don't want to put words in your mouth, especially as the only plausible meaning I can drag out of it represents a total misunderstanding of evolution. So I'm working, for the moment, on the idea that I'm being especially dumb today and that's why I can't grasp what is probably a straightforward statement. Looking forward to clarification assuming you want to get involved with

discussing science honestly or objectively.

 

[AdB]

I think one huge problem for evolution is how new functional dna was formed even once the impossible leap from non-live to live was somehow made... Lenski's e-coli experiment has yielded some mutations that lead to some changes in the bacteria, but non of these are about really new genetic code.

 

[pitabread]

I think one huge problem for evolution is how new functional dna was formed even once the impossible leap from non-live to live was somehow made... Lenski's e-coli experiment has yielded some mutations that lead to some changes in the bacteria, but non of these are about really new genetic code.

What do you mean by "really new genetic code"?

Also worth noting is there are numerous examples of gain-of-function mutations in the literature. So that in itself isn't an issue for biological evolution.

 

[AdB]

What do you mean by "really new genetic code"?

Also worth noting is there are numerous examples of gain-of-function mutations in the literature. So that in itself isn't an issue for biological evolution.

Quite literaly what I say, initially there was no genetic code, live somehow started and then bit by bit all the genetic code somehow came into existance... how?
Lenski's experiment definitely did not yield evidence for this. Gain of function doesn't neccesery need to be actual new function, as far as I know there are none, else it would have been shouted from the rooftops...

 

[Phred]

Quite literaly what I say, initially there was no genetic code, live somehow started and then bit by bit all the genetic code somehow came into existance... how?
Lenski's experiment definitely did not yield evidence for this. Gain of function doesn't neccesery need to be actual new function, as far as I know there are none, else it would have been shouted from the rooftops...

How Evolution Builds Genes from Scratch.

 

[AdB]

How Evolution Builds Genes from Scratch.

"But then she stumbled on studies suggesting that genes do not always evolve from existing ones, as biologists long supposed."

 

[Phred]

"But then she stumbled on studies suggesting that genes do not always evolve from existing ones, as biologists long supposed."

"Instead, some are fashioned from desolate stretches of the genome that do not code for any functional molecules."

 

[AdB]

"Instead, some are fashioned from desolate stretches of the genome that do not code for any functional molecules."

That is the assumption...
And still... fashioned from already existing code...

 

[Phred]

Isn't taking something out of context and then pretending it says something it doesn't called... lying?

 

[AdB]

Isn't taking something out of context and then pretending it says something it doesn't called... lying?

Just saying what the article said

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn't taking something out of context and then pretending it says something it doesn't called... lying?

It usually is and appears to be this time around. It was clearly a falsehood, an obviously false claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just saying what the article said

No, you made the mistake of calling DNA a "code". You at best misused a term that you do not understand.

 

[Phred]

Just saying what the article said

in·teg·ri·ty
/inˈteɡrədē/
noun
noun: integrity

1. the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
2. the state of being whole and undivided.

 

[AdB]

No, you made the mistake of calling DNA a "code". You at best misused a term that you do not understand.

So how do you define dna?

 

[pitabread]

Quite literaly what I say, initially there was no genetic code, live somehow started and then bit by bit all the genetic code somehow came into existance... how?

If you're talking about the origin of things like RNA and DNA, that's a question of biochemistry and origin-of-life research.

Lenski's experiment definitely did not yield evidence for this. Gain of function doesn't neccesery need to be actual new function, as far as I know there are none, else it would have been shouted from the rooftops...

Lenski's experiment has nothing to do with origin of life, so no, it wouldn't answer it.

Gain-of-function mutations are what they say; a mutation that enables a new function in an organism (whatever that may be). I'm not sure what you mean by "actual new function". If you're wondering about what enables the function to exist, that's the biochemical processes and interactions that are inherent in biochemistry.

 

[AdB]

If you're talking about the origin of things like RNA and DNA, that's a question of biochemistry and origin-of-life research.



Lenski's experiment has nothing to do with origin of life, so no, it wouldn't answer it.

Gain-of-function mutations are what they say; a mutation that enables a new function in an organism (whatever that may be). I'm not sure what you mean by "actual new function". If you're wondering about what enables the function to exist, that's the biochemical processes and interactions that are inherent in biochemistry.

I see you are coming with the same deflections as other atheists, no use continuing this discussion

 

[pitabread]

I see you are coming with the same deflections as other atheists, no use continuing this discussion

1) I'm not an atheist.

2) There are no deflections here. I'm simply trying to understand your position and what you mean by some of the terms you are using.

But if you don't want to elaborate on that then you're right, probably no use in continuing the discussion.

 

[Frank Robert]

This is not an apt quote. A six year old will be honest and will want to learn. i do not see that in creationists. Every creationist that I have run into to date is simply looking for excuses to maintain their old beliefs. One cannot explain something to those that do not want to learn.

That is what they have been taught since they were 6 yrs old. Along with, if you don't believe in a literal Bible God will get you.

 

[Frank Robert]

Thanks for sharing your dishonesty.

Should you ever visit wikipedia and look up natural selection. You will see exactly what I said.

Darwin's theory
Main articles: Inception of Darwin's theory and Development of Darwin's theory
Further information: Coloration evidence for natural selection
In 1859, Charles Darwin set out his theory of evolution by natural selection as an explanation for adaptation and speciation. He defined natural selection as the "principle by which each slight variation [of a trait], if useful, is preserved".[17] The concept was simple but powerful: individuals best adapted to their environments are more likely to survive and reproduce

Natural selection - Wikipedia

...

Darwin died in the 19 century. It is just possible that evolution theory, well, evolved a bit. It is unfortunate to see people whose knowledge has not evolved from what they were taught when they 6 years old.

 

[Frank Robert]

1) I'm not an atheist.

2) There are no deflections here. I'm simply trying to understand your position and what you mean by some of the terms you are using.

But if you don't want to elaborate on that then you're right, probably no use in continuing the discussion.

When people use the atheist gambit they are admitting they don't know what they are talking about.