Win a debate against evolution every time.

[samaus12345]

Your genetics tickles my brain lol

 

[mark kennedy]

Which definition of 'evolution'? If you mean the myth that mutations add something new please see that Dawkins Vid on youtube "Richard Dawkins stumped" or go to creation.com and type in the search box "mutations".

Information was put in 'kinds' from the beginning and each 'kind' has only that information available to it. Fish do not have information for wings. Birds no not have information for gills. A prokaryote does not have the information man has.

Michael Behe published a peer reviewed paper on gene duplication, I thought it might be of interest:

Gene duplication is thought to be a major source of evolutionary innovation because it allows one copy of a gene to mutate and explore genetic space while the other copy continues to fulfill the original function. Models of the process often implicitly assume that a single mutation to the duplicated gene can confer a new selectable property. Yet some protein features, such as disulfide bonds or ligand binding sites, require the participation of two or more amino acid residues, which could require several mutations. Here we model the evolution of such protein features by what we consider to be the conceptually simplest route—point mutation in duplicated genes.​

Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues Michael J. Behe and David W. Snoke

He tends to stay current on the trends in Intelligent Design and if you are looking into the scientific aspects of the origins debate he is a splendid source:

Uncommon Descent: Serving the Intelligent Design Community

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[samaus12345]

Although many scientists assume that Darwinian processes account for the evolution of complex biochemical systems, we are skeptical

So he doesnt believe that, but he still believes we 'evolved'? I dont have 'faith' in his model, do you Mark? i dont know genetics as well as you but my apriori axiom is not that of Behe or other 'evolutionists' so i can not have 'faith' in there inferences and models.

 

[Metal Minister]

All it would take to make this creationist(though I'm not sure how admitting we believe God is the all powerful creator is a derogatory term) "shut up" is for evolution to show with 100% fact, no "we think" "believe" "assume" or any variation of the wording that one kind of animal changed into another kind of animal. Ie a dog became a non-dog, and cat came from a non-cat...etc.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Smidlee]

Are creationists denying that mutations in the gametes are inheritable?

If yes, then how do you explain why you look like your parents?

If no, then what's stopping full scale evolution from happening?

All evolution requires is two things: inheritable mutations and a process that allows one gene dominance (natural selection.)

If you have those two things then there's nothing stopping a dinosaur from turning to a bird or a fish turning into a mammal...

If you feel like this is an incorrect simplification of how biology works then please explain to me exactly why and where this process doesn't work?

This is like stating that because we sent man to the moon then what stopping from exploring our galaxy. The engine that sent man to the moon is not good enough to send man to the stars. The same with mutation + NS. Mutation and NS is too short sighted to make long term goals. Most of the time to gain in the long run requires taking lost on the short term.
For example, an arm would become total useless (handicap) long before it could evolve into a wing. Bacteria antibiotic resistance is a good example of natural selection works for short term gain.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is like stating that because we sent man to the moon then what stopping from exploring our galaxy. The engine that sent man to the moon is not good enough to send man to the stars. The same with mutation + NS. Mutation and NS is too short sighted to make long term goals. Most of the time to gain in the long run requires taking lost on the short term.
For example, an arm would become total useless (handicap) long before it could evolve into a wing. Bacteria antibiotic resistance is a good example of natural selection works for short term gain.

That's not how adaptation works, random mutations are about the worst explanation available. Some random variation comes into play and occasionally a mutation has a beneficial effect but they tend to be minor effects the disappear over time. Not a formula for macroevolution.

 

[KhaosTheory]

All it would take to make this creationist(though I'm not sure how admitting we believe God is the all powerful creator is a derogatory term) "shut up" is for evolution to show with 100% fact, no "we think" "believe" "assume" or any variation of the wording that one kind of animal changed into another kind of animal. Ie a dog became a non-dog, and cat came from a non-cat...etc.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

I know we've explained this already... a dog will NEVER be a "non-dog", a cat will NEVER be a "non-cat".

Likewise, a mammal will NEVER be a "non-vertebrate" and a bird will NEVER be a "non-therapod dinosaur", a human will NEVER be a "non-ape".

I don't see why this is so hard to understand... Birds are just heavily mutated dinosaurs, humans are just mutated apes, mammals are just mutated vertebrates, and amphibians are just mutated fish.

But, if when you ask to see a "non-something" you are actually asking to see "something that turned into something that can no longer interbred with it's parent's population, then yes we have seen that many many times.

It's called "speciation" and that's all that evolution really is.

Evolution 101: Speciation

Speciation: more evidence ignored by intelligent design « Nondiscovery Blog

Observed Instances of Speciation

What you are presenting is a typical fallacious creationist question.

"I will accept X if you can prove Y" (where Y is an impossibility and a complete strawman)

 

[samaus12345]

Khaos theory

Noahs ark predicts speciation WITHIN KINDS. This is ALL we ever observe.

 

[KhaosTheory]

Khaos theory

Noahs ark predicts speciation WITHIN KINDS. This is ALL we ever observe.

Oh ok. So a horse can turn into a zebra or a mule but this can't turn into a horse:

Why not?

 

[samaus12345]

Speciation is a DOWNWARD trend of genetic information/options. Once you hit the bottom (great dane---->chiwawa) then theres no going back. I dont know what the picture is if you have a literature...

 

[KhaosTheory]

This is how biology and taxonomy works: clades

 

[KhaosTheory]

Speciation is a DOWNWARD trend of genetic information/options. Once you hit the bottom (great dane---->chiwawa) then theres no going back. I dont know what the picture is if you have a literature...

It's what turned into your horses and zebras and mules.

Horse Evolution

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it's a "downward" trend toward what? Is zebra, mule, and horse the last line?

What's stopping them from speciating again like you think they did 3000 years ago?

Also, you know we've found horse, zebra, and mule fossils way earlier than 3000 years ago, right?

and how could evolution possibly have happened as fast as you are claiming in order to give rise to completely new species like that in only 3000 years?

I was mistaken... You don't deny evolution, you just think it happened in some kind of super turbo-charged way.

 

[samaus12345]

Yes i have a different apriori axiom than evolutionary biologists. They have the phylogenetic tree/Darwins tree of life/clades etc. Quite angering they put a bible verse in there.

 

[samaus12345]

Which side are you representing? Neodarwinism myth? OR the bible? I need to know before proceeding.

 

[KhaosTheory]

Which side are you representing? Neodarwinism myth? OR the bible? I need to know before proceeding.

You don't need to know anything. You need to address the issue directly and don't put any spin on it.

Facts are facts no matter what philosophy you have.

 

[samaus12345]

Have you read origin of species y/n?

 

[KhaosTheory]

My question was: you accept that evolution can happen in some sort of super-charged manner where animals mutate and speciate in an extraordinarily short amount of time but you then deny that dinosaurs could mutate into birds over a very LONG amount of time?

It doesn't make sense to me. Also, what evidence do you even have that horses, mules, and zebras all evolved that quickly?

I have fossils and genetic evidence to support my theory, what about you?

 

[samaus12345]

Have you read origin of species y/n?.

 

[KhaosTheory]

I find it ironic that you've been scoffing at the improbability of evolution due to what you see as the "slim chance" that multiple beneficial mutations could evolve simultaneously yet the rates of evolution that you are presenting where a horse, mule, and zebra could all speciate within only 3000 years would require a VASTLY larger amount of simultaneously selected mutations and you claim such odds are virtually impossible...

 

[samaus12345]

I cant discuss something with someone who hasnt read the fundamental doctrine of which they ignorantly claim so much knowledge.

Have you read origin of species y/n?