What is the mechanism to stop "kinds"from turning into other "kinds"?

pitabread · Oct 9, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
If i have to explain dominant and recessive genes....... you are in the wrong conversation. The basics you should understand, or go read a biology book.

I've taken undergrad courses on genetics. Believe me, I've read the books and am well aware how things work. I'm just trying to see if *you* are.

Considering it's taken a dozen or more posts just to lead you to the concept of genes, I was starting to give up hope you'd bring that up.

Now: how do you think genes work?

And there is, yet the Asian remains Asian does it not? The African remains African does it not?

Does the African or Asian evolve into the Afro-Asian? Of course they don't. You know how the new subspecies came about, so why deny this in the fossil record, except your attempt to justify your false classifications?

You're still dancing around the issue here.

Look, you claimed that this 'variation' exists within these populations of 'subspecies'. Right?

But then you also claimed that 'variation' only arises when these two 'subspecies' mate.

You need to articulate what exactly it is you mean by 'variation'. You haven't done that and consequently appear to be equivocating over the term and contradicting yourself in the process.

tas8831 · Oct 9, 2017

Hieronymus said:
Everywhere, everything.
Not enough?

Enough to let me know that you have no clue.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 9, 2017

pitabread said:
You're still dancing around the issue here.

Look, you claimed that this 'variation' exists within these populations of 'subspecies'. Right?

But then you also claimed that 'variation' only arises when these two 'subspecies' mate.

You need to articulate what exactly it is you mean by 'variation'. You haven't done that and consequently appear to be equivocating over the term and contradicting yourself in the process.

No, you are dancing around the issue. Have you seen an Asian become anything other than an Asian regardless of the amount of mutation? African other than African? Why do you find it so hard to admit to yourself that the only way variation occurs in the species is when two subspecies within that species mate and produce a new subspecies? Why do you find it so hard to accept all you have ever observed? Why do you keep trying to avoid the facts? Does the real world observation versus theory of how it happened long long ago scare you?

tas8831 · Oct 9, 2017

yeshuaslavejeff said:
As He Says in His Word.

Whoever rejects His Word rejects Jesus, rejects Truth, rejects Life.

As He Says, "ALL CREATION" is the evidence of HIM, and whoever denies Him is judged without mercy involved. They had their chance, He says often.

None of that is evidence.

Who do you hope to convince by writing such empty rhetoric?

pitabread · Oct 9, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
No, you are dancing around the issue.

I've been trying to get you to nail down your points, but the fact that you keep repeating yourself and answering questions with questions leads me to believe you haven't really thought about this all that much.

Let's try again: You brought up genes. Now how do you think genes work?

Justatruthseeker · Oct 9, 2017

tas8831 said:
None of that is evidence.

Who do you hope to convince by writing such empty rhetoric?

Lets look at the evidence.

E coli after generations of mutations remained E coli. Asian regardless of the amount of mutations remain Asian. T-Rex remained T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest. The only evidence you can give that one things becomes another is claims that common ancestors split, even if every single one of those common ancestors is missing on every single evolutionary tree.

I ask you, what evidence indeed?

Justatruthseeker · Oct 9, 2017

pitabread said:
I've been trying to get you to nail down your points, but the fact that you keep repeating yourself and answering questions with questions leads me to believe you haven't really thought about this all that much.

Let's try again: You brought up genes. Now how do you think genes work?

By copying what already exists, into similar yet different patterns, whether thru natural means or mutation. But the key word you will fail to comprehend is what "Already" exists.

Jimmy D · Oct 9, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Subspecies mating is how new subspecies enter the species. The species does not vary until subspecies mate. The Asian does not evolve into the Afro-Asian, nor does the African. The species remains the same, the human species. Only new subspecies within the species arise.

You have observed nothing else, even if you deny the truth when it comes to Darwins Finches.

If subspecies (C) can only arise through different subspecies (A+B) mating where did those original subspecies (A & B) come from? Variation?

tas8831 · Oct 9, 2017

Motherofkittens said:
What is the mechanism and how does it work that stops accumulated mutations from accumulating to the point of classifying the organism as, creationists say "something completely different "?

Because there are millions of pieces of evidence that says that can happen then it is certainly up to those that say it cannot to produce even more evidence for that position.

And of course it is entirely possible. I'd just like to know if it is fact, and if so, how does it work.

Thanks. By the way, I have read a lot of creationist literature ( but unfortunately it is quite lacking) and in fact I was raised a creationist. I'd be happy to accept it as long as there is good evidence for it.

Isn't it a shame that it is nearly 100% impossible to get responses from creationists that are:

1. on topic
2. not based on fire-and-brimstone evangelism
3. not attempts to 'turn the tables'
4. not diversions
etc...

Justatruthseeker · Oct 9, 2017

pitabread said:
I've been trying to get you to nail down your points, but the fact that you keep repeating yourself and answering questions with questions leads me to believe you haven't really thought about this all that much.

Let's try again: You brought up genes. Now how do you think genes work?

Now answer the questions and quit avoiding......

Have you seen an Asian become anything other than an Asian regardless of the amount of mutation? African other than African? Why do you find it so hard to admit to yourself that the only way variation occurs in the species is when two subspecies within that species mate and produce a new subspecies? Why do you find it so hard to accept all you have ever observed? Why do you keep trying to avoid the facts? Does the real world observation versus theory of how it happened long long ago scare you?

If you refuse to answer further conversation will be pointless.....

pitabread · Oct 9, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
E coli after generations of mutations remained E coli.

The crazy thing is there is arguably more genetic variability among E.coli than there is between primate species: Comparison of 61 Sequenced Escherichia coli Genomes

The predicted pan-genome comprises 15,741 gene families, and only 993 (6%) of the families are represented in every genome, comprising the core genome. The variable or ‘accessory’ genes thus make up more than 90% of the pan-genome and about 80% of a typical genome; some of these variable genes tend to be co-localized on genomic islands. The diversity within the species E. coli, and the overlap in gene content between this and related species, suggests a continuum rather than sharp species borders in this group of Enterobacteriaceae.

“This gene is not found in E. coli”, is an expression often heard in discussions about novel genes in various organisms, and when people are looking for functional matches in databases. It is a sobering thought to realize that any given E. coli genome sequenced will have only roughly 20% of its genes part of the E. coli core, and the remaining 80% are not found in all other E. coligenomes.

It kinda reinforces my own view that creationists are far more accepting of genetic variability the further one gets from humans.

yeshuaslavejeff · Oct 9, 2017

tas8831 said:
None of that is evidence.

Who do you hope to convince by writing such empty rhetoric?

No one - it is not for me to convince anyone - YHWH takes care of that as HE PLEASES,
and as HE SAYS (IN HIS WORD) not everyone is convinced, no, most are not :

2 Corinthians 2:15-17English Standard Version (ESV)
15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? 17 For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

Justatruthseeker · Oct 9, 2017

Jimmy D said:
If subspecies (C) can only arise through different subspecies (A+B) mating where did those original subspecies (A & B) come from? Variation?

You were given that answer in other forums.

Adam contained all the genetic traits of every race. Half of his genome was used to create Eve. Hence the two shall become one flesh. This is why those E coli regardless of the mutations they underwent remained E coli. They had no infusion of new genetic material as when two subspecies mate. There were two subspecies to begin with, not a single solitary organism.

Your starting point is flawed. Not simple to complex, but complete separated into two.

pitabread · Oct 9, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
If you refuse to answer further conversation will be pointless.....

You're the one making the argument, thus I'm asking you the questions. Answering questions with questions is poor debate form and merely demonstrates a bankrupt argument.

Why do you find it so hard to admit to yourself that the only way variation occurs in the species is when two subspecies within that species mate and produce a new subspecies?

Let me requote your own words:

Justatruthseeker said:
Oh I understand there is variation within the subspecies...

Once again, what exactly do you mean by 'variation'? Instead of answering a question with a question, just articulate what you mean. It shouldn't be this difficult. You've already mentioned genes, it should be a short hop to a proper answer.

tas8831 · Oct 9, 2017

xianghua said:
2) since complex systems are evidence for design, we can't claim that they evolved by a natural process.

Human-made complex systems are indeed evidence for human design.

Describing a biological system in terms that seem to invoke human activity (i.e., analogies) is not evidence for anything.

so this is another reason why one kind of creature can't evolve into another.

1. What complex systems did a chimp-human ancestor have that a modern chimp does not?
2. You just sank the ark (' one kind of creature can't evolve into another')

Justatruthseeker · Oct 9, 2017

pitabread said:
The crazy thing is there is arguably more genetic variability among E.coli than there is between primate species: Comparison of 61 Sequenced Escherichia coli Genomes

It kinda reinforces my own view that creationists are far more accepting of genetic variability the further one gets from humans.

And yet bacteria subsume new genes from other dead bacteria. Yet remain the exact same E coli. But you didnt want to mention the part about bacteria getting genes from other dead bacteria in your post did you. Wouldnt have had quite the thrust to those that didnt know, would it have..... would have made your claims quite spurious and pointless, since the source of those new genes is well known.

Jimmy D · Oct 9, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Have you seen an Asian become anything other than an Asian regardless of the amount of mutation? African other than African?

So you think that the only evidence to be gathered for a species evolving is to sit around for a few tens of thousands of years until you "see" it happen?

tas8831 · Oct 9, 2017

yeshuaslavejeff said:
No one - it is not for me to convince anyone - YHWH takes care of that as HE PLEASES,

So Yahweh has been pleased to not take care of me.

Your words are pretty hateful and repetitive and you really almost entirely on bible verses and empty rhetoric. I see no reason to waste time with you anymore.

Peace be with you, and may you find some humility.

yeshuaslavejeff · Oct 9, 2017

Jimmy D said:
So you think that the only evidence to be gathered for a species evolving is to sit around for a few tens of thousands of years until you "see" it happen?

They can watch for 10,000 years and never see any evolution.

They can watch as long as they want and never see any evolution.

They can do 1,000,000 studies to try to prove evolution is not a theory, and they never will prove it - it is impossible, unless they 'adjust' the data to suit their own way.

Jimmy D · Oct 9, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
If you refuse to answer further conversation will be pointless.....

Justatruthseeker said:
You were given that answer in other forums.

Adam contained all the genetic traits of every race. Half of his genome was used to create Eve. Hence the two shall become one flesh. This is why those E coli regardless of the mutations they underwent remained E coli. They had no infusion of new genetic material as when two subspecies mate. There were two subspecies to begin with, not a single solitary organism.

Your starting point is flawed. Not simple to complex, but complete separated into two.

Of course, the mysterious "super genome", how could I forget that one. Remind me, is there any evidence of this present in any organism's DNA today you can point to?

What is the mechanism to stop "kinds"from turning into other "kinds"?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency