- Oct 20, 2017
- 890
- 103
- 93
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
That is interesting.
I like your tag line. I always heard it, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it.
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.
Did you know that "presbyterian" anagrams to "best in prayer"?
We've been over this many times. Your refusal to accept evidence leads to others refusing to post more and more evidence. Your continuous dishonesty is a very poor reflection of yourself. Any lurkers by now will be well aware that you have no interest in evidence and appear not to understand genetics or evolution.You would if you could but you can't. It is amusing than none of you evos are willing to take 5 minuets to prove me wrong. You have in effect prove me right. Thanks.
When man tinkers with the process, it is no longer natural selection. All you described was similar to vacinating against a disease.
Oh wow, are you messing with me? Genes are a part of our DNA. Any mutation that impacts a gene must be affecting DNA, because genes are in DNA, made of DNA.Mutations don't affect our DNA, they affect our genes
-_- just gonna ignore the fact that some of the key developmental genes for land animal jaws are identical to those which contribute to gill formation in fish, and that during embryonic development, land animals such as humans develop unnecessary structures entirely analogous to those which become gills in fish because of these shared genes. Also, what about lungfish, which have entirely functional genes for both breathing air and water? And did you forget that most amphibians that breathe air as adults and walk on land start out aquatic, like the tadpoles of frogs? Are you going to deny that tadpoles have genes necessary for an aquatic lifestyle?Some genes are dormant but no land animal has aquatic genes.
-_- I wasn't calling Christians "flat Earthers". I was suggesting that the fact that creationists often imply that evolution supporters have some sort of emotional attachment was similar to how flat Earthers talk about people having an emotional attachment to the idea that the Earth is a sphere.Calling Christians "flat earthers" exposes your ignorance of Christianity.
I want to put it on the record that I hate the name of this gene: The Sonic the Hedgehog gene. Develops gills and other respiratory structures in fish, and contributes to jaws and limbs in vertebrates such as ourselves. The reason for the difference being other genes contributing to embryonic development. Sonic hedgehog gene provides evidence that our limbs may have evolved from sharks’ gillsbut you said that land animal has a pseudogene for gills. do you have any reference for that claim? what is the name of this pseudogene?
Dude, no, detecting the impact of natural selection is not the same as interfering with it.When man tinkers with the process, it is no longer natural selection. All you described was similar to vacinating against a disease.
Dude, no, detecting the impact of natural selection is not the same as interfering with it.
It's more like this: They compared the genes of people that historically have been at risk for contracting malaria with those with minimal to no historical risk of the disease, and were able to correctly identify genes which provided a resistance to malaria solely by the differences between common gene variations within each group, as people that have been at risk for the disease for many generations will have natural selection pressures that promote genes that grant a resistance to the disease (and thus a high frequency of malaria resistance genes), and people that have experienced practically no risk to the disease for many generations will not experience that selective pressure and thus malaria resistance genes would be comparatively rare among that group.
That is, this is the result one would predict using evolutionary models, and when put into practice, it worked.
Oh wow, are you messing with me? Genes are a part of our DNA. Any mutation that impacts a gene must be affecting DNA, because genes are in DNA, made of DNA.
Your statement is like this one, and is incorrect in a similar way: "cutting off my arm doesn't affect my body, just my arm."
-_- just gonna ignore the fact that some of the key developmental genes for land animal jaws are identical to those which contribute to gill formation in fish, and that during embryonic development, land animals such as humans develop unnecessary structures entirely analogous to those which become gills in fish because of these shared genes. Also, what about lungfish, which have entirely functional genes for both breathing air and water? And did you forget that most amphibians that breathe air as adults and walk on land start out aquatic, like the tadpoles of frogs? Are you going to deny that tadpoles have genes necessary for an aquatic lifestyle?
-_- I wasn't calling Christians "flat Earthers". I was suggesting that the fact that creationists often imply that evolution supporters have some sort of emotional attachment was similar to how flat Earthers talk about people having an emotional attachment to the idea that the Earth is a sphere.
Which, by the way, you did imply that evolution supporters such as myself would have some sort of emotional turmoil if evolution was disproven, to enough of an extent that we would willfully ignore evidence against the theory.
Oh dear, I think that that paper was slightly above your pay grade although to be fair I didn't expect you to actually read or understand it, let alone address it.
We've been over this many times. Your refusal to accept evidence leads to others refusing to post more and more evidence. Your continuous dishonesty is a very poor reflection of yourself. Any lurkers by now will be well aware that you have no interest in evidence and appear not to understand genetics or evolution.
Identifying genes does not prove natural selection. In any case the species did not change.
You also don't understand even basic genetics.
DNA carries genetic instruction, but a mutation only affects the gene, not the DNA
I want to know who told you that DNA carries genes like I would carry an apple rather than genes literally being a part of the DNA, so that I may slap them.DNA carries genetic instruction, but a mutation only affects the gene, not the DNA
HOX genes are the most highly conserved genes among all animals. Humans have some HOX genes which are entirely identical to those in fruit flies, the organism used to find these genes to begin with. Heck, by virtue of DNA having only 4 different bases, equal sized genomes of hypothetical organisms entirely unrelated to each other will have their bases match up 25% of the time just by chance.They are not identical, they are only similar. All bird beaks are similar, but none are identical.
No harm done, misunderstandings happen.Thanks for the clarification.
If you are going to use the term "kind", please define it, because there is no standard definition of what "kind" actually means. Some people use it to mean species, others genus, etc. However, evolution doesn't claim that a chicken can hatch from a lizard egg or other such nonsense. Rather, that minor differences in populations created by mutation can change in frequency within that population, and over time this process can lead to major changes over many generations.IMO evolutionists ignore the laws of genetics and "after their kind" which is proved thousands of times every day.
Then how does a frog start out as a tadpole? Also, I would think that the fins of whales would count as aquatic characteristics.Land animals do not have genes for aquatic characteristics.
-_- if a species of moth comes in two colors, yellow and purple, and the yellow moths get eaten by predators 3 times more frequently than the purple moths, do you deny that even if the population started out with equal numbers of the moth colors that over the course of generations the purple moths would become more common? Because if the process of natural selection applies, the purple moths should become more common.Identifying genes does not prove natural selection. In any case the species did not change.
-_- if a species of moth comes in two colors, yellow and purple, and the yellow moths get eaten by predators 3 times more frequently than the purple moths, do you deny that even if the population started out with equal numbers of the moth colors that over the course of generations the purple moths would become more common? Because if the process of natural selection applies, the purple moths should become more common.
Moths do come in different colors, and not because of natural selection.
Species is a label that we came up with, and it hardly represents nature perfectly. Speciation is a continuous process, so it is not uncommon to observe populations that are partially through the process of diverging into different species. You aren't going to be able to say "at generation 98 these two groups were the same species, and at generation 99 they became different species", the lines are too gray for that. Well, with animals, anyways. The definition of species for bacteria is different than it is for animals (it wouldn't exactly make sense to apply a categorization that is highly influenced by the capacity for members of a population to sexually reproduce with each other to organisms that primarily reproduce asexually). For them, it is based on the percentage of genetic similarity, so you could more easily draw a line. -_- but creationists like to treat the bacteria based evolution experiments as if they don't count because "they are still bacteria", which is like saying "a chicken population giving rise to a dog population over the course of many generations doesn't count because they are still animals".
I want to know who told you that DNA carries genes like I would carry an apple rather than genes literally being a part of the DNA, so that I may slap them.
But for your sake, here's what a gene is: "A gene is a sequence of DNA or RNA which codes for a molecule that has a function." The "or RNA" applies to the few viruses that use RNA as their genetic material instead of DNA. Regardless, genes are a part of the DNA sequence directly, not something merely chemically attached to it.
HOX genes are the most highly conserved genes among all animals. Humans have some HOX genes which are entirely identical to those in fruit flies, the organism used to find these genes to begin with. Heck, by virtue of DNA having only 4 different bases, equal sized genomes of hypothetical organisms entirely unrelated to each other will have their bases match up 25% of the time just by chance.
I sincerely hope that you do not think EVERY gene has to be different between individuals for them to have different physical traits. Heck, technically, genes could be entirely identical between individuals and they can still end up with minor differences, which is why identical twins often grow up to not look entirely the same, despite having identical genomes. After all, the environment plays a role.
However, evolution doesn't claim that a chicken can hatch from a lizard egg or other such nonsense. Rather, that minor differences in populations created by mutation can change in frequency within that population, and over time this process can lead to major changes over many generations.[/QUOTE]If you are going to use the term "kind", please define it, because there is no standard definition of what "kind" actually means. Some people use it to mean species, others genus, etc.
Kind and species are the same term.
I want to know who told you that DNA carries genes like I would carry an apple rather than genes literally being a part of the DNA, so that I may slap them.
But for your sake, here's what a gene is: "A gene is a sequence of DNA or RNA which codes for a molecule that has a function." The "or RNA" applies to the few viruses that use RNA as their genetic material instead of DNA. Regardless, genes are a part of the DNA sequence directly, not something merely chemically attached to it.
HOX genes are the most highly conserved genes among all animals. Humans have some HOX genes which are entirely identical to those in fruit flies, the organism used to find these genes to begin with. Heck, by virtue of DNA having only 4 different bases, equal sized genomes of hypothetical organisms entirely unrelated to each other will have their bases match up 25% of the time just by chance.
I sincerely hope that you do not think EVERY gene has to be different between individuals for them to have different physical traits. Heck, technically, genes could be entirely identical between individuals and they can still end up with minor differences, which is why identical twins often grow up to not look entirely the same, despite having identical genomes. After all, the environment plays a role.
No harm done, misunderstandings happen.
If you are going to use the term "kind", please define it, because there is no standard definition of what "kind" actually means. Some people use it to mean species, others genus, etc. However, evolution doesn't claim that a chicken can hatch from a lizard egg or other such nonsense. Rather, that minor differences in populations created by mutation can change in frequency within that population, and over time this process can lead to major changes over many generations.
Then how does a frog start out as a tadpole? Also, I would think that the fins of whales would count as aquatic characteristics.
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2016/04/17/natural-selection-opposite-evolution/LOL, they weren't trying to "prove" natural selection. Natural selection is a known and understood mechanism... only the most ignorant person would deny that. In fact, not even the idiots over at creationist websites deny it...
"The creationist view of natural selection is supported biblically and scientifically. Natural selection is a God-ordained process that allows organisms to survive. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the kinds and works to preserve the genetic viability of the kinds."
Even the arch-idiot Ken Ham accepts it....
Natural selection removes or reorganizes genetic information, allowing different traits, such as different beak sizes (e.g., the finches of the Galapagos), to show up. Those organisms best suited to their environment survive while the others die off or don’t reproduce as well. Of course, those that thrive pass along their unique combination of genes to the next generation, skewing the gene pool in their favor. Eventually this can allow new species (such as a new species of finch) to arise.
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?