Dawnhammer
Well-Known Member
Yes, unfortunately DNA copying is not without mistakes so different sequence of nucleotides is created thus creating a mutation.
Exactly what is so hard to understand in this?
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.
Copying a file creates no new information.
I don't think you've done your homework yet.Yes, unfortunately DNA copying is not without mistakes so different sequence of nucleotides is created thus creating a mutation.
Exactly what is so hard to understand in this?
You might want to reconsider your approach, since your knowledge of the subject does not back up your condescension. Copying a file does, in fact, create new information: the information that there are now two copies. If you change various bits in one of the copies, you have now created additional information -- something that happens every time DNA is duplicated and subsequently mutates.ou should do some research on information theory. Copying a file creates no new information. Just a copy. But you'll learn that when you study.
On the other hand, the out of Africa idea has the advantage that it is consistent with a wide range of genetic and paleontological data, while the out of Ararat idea is contradicted by both kinds of data. So yes, they're both ideas, but one of them appears to be right and the other wrong.That's the 'out of africa' idea, which is not a proven fact, the ages are also assumptions.
The 'out of ararat' (or babel) idea i personally like better, because it also fits with the table of nations, which is considered authoritative in ethnology.
So one might say you have a financial interest in supporting the theory of evolution, irrespective of where the science may lead?As for the original question, I'd have to quit my job if I failed to take evolution seriously, since much of what I do only makes sense if evolution is true.
If this is the extent of the typical evolutionist's thinking, I can understand why they believe what they do.You might want to reconsider your approach, since your knowledge of the subject does not back up your condescension. Copying a file does, in fact, create new information: the information that there are now two copies. If you change various bits in one of the copies, you have now created additional information -- something that happens every time DNA is duplicated and subsequently mutates.
I believe he is saying that he must take evolution seriously because that is where science leads, and he could not follow science without it.So one might say you have a financial interest in supporting the theory of evolution, irrespective of where the science may lead?
Oh. 'Cause I was hearing "I've got to believe in evolution else I wouldn't have a job and my life's work would be meaningless".I believe he is saying that he must take evolution seriously because that is where science leads, and he could not follow science without it.
Please give me a solid and exact definition of a "kind". Every time I prove that evolution happens someone moves the goalposts and says kinds didn't change.He observed variation within a kind, which is something nobody disputes.
Many vaccines are developed using evolutionary theory, dude. It's also why we need to get a new flu shot every year. Here is a fun page for you to read, if you're interested: Viruses and Evolution | History of VaccinesIt's biology.Nonsense.
Without biology we wouldn't have that.
But in fact vaccination was discovered by accident and has nothing to do with evolution.You keep saying this everywhere, every time, but you ought to know that their consensus is naturalistic and so are their models regarding the origins of things.
Part of how living nature works is by evolving.Biology is studying and discovering how living nature works.Total nonsense.
I hate to break it to you, but... speciation has been observed already, dude. Speciation in real timeThere are many many more theories that can actually be tested, unlike evolution.Again, that's just nonsense.
Genetics is the study of genes and their structures (IE DNA). It's pretty relevant to evolution.Maybe you mean genetics, which is the actual real science regarding how things work.
I like to learn things and paid attention in high school science classes. Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish was a pretty great read, too. And Jerry A. Coyne's Why Evolution Is True.Where do you get your beliefs anyway?
Who told you this bunk?
I don't think you've done your homework yet.
Any time. Until I read the recent posts from you Evolutionists, I hadn't realized how much you needed a bit of a science lesson.Science advice from a Creationist - that’s like definition of irony. Thanks for laughs I guess.
No, because I'd probably make more money doing something else. Would it be fair to say that you've just impugned my motives, irrespective of you knowing anything about them?So one might say you have a financial interest in supporting the theory of evolution, irrespective of where the science may lead?
<Blink> Look, you made the analogy, so the extent of the thinking involved is your issue, not mine. The fact is, even given the limited extent involved, your statement was simply wrong.If this is the extent of the typical evolutionist's thinking, I can understand why they believe what they do.
Yes--it reminds me of the creationist fantasy that shadowy satanic forces are paying scientists to pretend to believe in evolution.Oh. 'Cause I was hearing "I've got to believe in evolution else I wouldn't have a job and my life's work would be meaningless".
I guess they don't know about Hanlon's razor.Yes--it reminds me of the creationist fantasy that shadowy satanic forces are paying scientists to pretend to believe in evolution.
Do you have anything substantive to contribute about evolution? So far the only statement you've made with much content was wrong.I guess they don't know about Hanlon's razor.
Actually, you saying it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. The statement was right, and you've been unable to refute it other than to insist that it's wrong.Do you have anything substantive to contribute about evolution? So far the only statement you've made with much content was wrong.
How many bits does it take to contain the information in a file? How many bits does it take to contain the information in two files? You can use a specific case, or offer a general solution. Now, how many bits does it take to contain the information in two files, one of which is a copy of the other but with some changes?Actually, you saying it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. The statement was right, and you've been unable to refute it other than to insist that it's wrong.
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?