[_ Old Earth _] Another Error Found

[Cygnus]

That is quite false. Their a re quite a few geneticists that could easily point out multitudes of new genes arising all the time. Also there isn't such a thing as deevolution.

Then lets have these multitude of genes that are arising all the time...as o de-evolution, google blind cave fish

 

[calvin]

calvin here.
Me thinks there is a vast difference between new genes and viable genetic change.
If one wants a tree to undergo sufficient acquisition of new genes so as to become a dinosaur, (just an example) then each genetically enriched (?) tree will need to be viable until it can uproots and walk/run around gobbling up other changed trees.
I gather by 'speciation' it is generally understood that one genetic species undergoes change to become another distinct species?
This then, if so does raise the possibility that at some time gazillions of years ago some plants acquired sufficient new genes to allow them to become a new species of animate life.........triffids?

 

[Barbarian]

What is seen in speciation is a re-arrangement of genes that already exist...

No, that's wrong. For example, the evolution of new alleles is a common form of speciation.

or an event of de-evolution that removes information.

Let's test your belief. If birds are evolved from reptiles, then would the lack of teeth in birds be a reduction in information? Do you have enough confidence in your belief to say? Let's see if you do.

NEVER do we see beneficial information added to the DNA code.

No, that's false too. The Milano mutation, for example. Or the CCR5-Ä32 mutation that gives resistance to plague (and coincidentally against HIV). There are many other examples. You've been badly misled about that.

In fact, there is the documented evolution of a new enzyme system in bacteria, and new digestive structure in reptiles from populations lacking these useful features.

 

[Barbarian]

Me thinks there is a vast difference between new genes and viable genetic change.
If one wants a tree to undergo sufficient acquisition of new genes so as to become a dinosaur, (just an example)

If you think evolutionary theory says trees can give rise to dinosaurs, then we've located the problem.

 

[GodsGrace]

No, that's wrong. For example, the evolution of new alleles is a common form of speciation.



Let's test your belief. If birds are evolved from reptiles, then would the lack of teeth in birds be a reduction in information? Do you have enough confidence in your belief to say? Let's see if you do.



No, that's false too. The Milano mutation, for example. Or the CCR5-Ä32 mutation that gives resistance to plague (and coincidentally against HIV). There are many other examples. You've been badly misled about that.

In fact, there is the documented evolution of a new enzyme system in bacteria, and new digestive structure in reptiles from populations lacking these useful features.

The new enzyme system in bacteria...

Would this be the reason why it's becoming resistant to antibiotics?
This would be a form of survival on the bacteria's part...

 

[Cygnus]

Let's test your belief. If birds are evolved from reptiles

Evolution is impossible. Birds were always birds created after their own kinds. Or, does you bible put it differently?

 

[Cygnus]

No, that's false too. The Milano mutation, for example. Or the CCR5-Ä32 mutation that gives resistance to plague (and coincidentally against HIV). There are many other examples. You've been badly misled about that.

Seriously, I have to laugh if that's the best you have.

 

[calvin]

If you think evolutionary theory says trees can give rise to dinosaurs, then we've located the problem.

 

[Barbarian]

(Cygnus denies beneficial mutations)

(Barbarian cites three and notes that there are many more.

Seriously, I have to laugh if that's the best you have.

You denied something that occurs in nature. I showed you three examples of precisely what you claimed could not be. Would you like to see some more?

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution is impossible.

As you just learned, it's directly observed to happen.

Birds were always birds

There's no point in denying the evidence. Birds evolved from archosaurs, almost certainly theropod dinosaurs. Would you like me to show you again?

created after their own kinds.

They were. In that case, God used mutation and natural selection. You're willing to let God be the creator, but you're having trouble letting Him do it His way.

Or, does you bible put it differently?

Nothing in the Bible says that He just poofed them. He says nature produced the diversity of living things at His command. Let Him do it His way.

 

[Barbarian]

The new enzyme system in bacteria...

Irreducibly complex, too. Shortly after the new enzyme evolved, a series of mutation produced a regulator, so that the enzyme is only active when the substrate is present. As a result a three-part system evolved such that it only works if all three elements are present. Remove any one of them, and it doesn't work.

Would this be the reason why it's becoming resistant to antibiotics?

There are many sorts of bacteria, and many sorts of antibiotic resistance. Interestingly, Flemming, after discovering penicillin, predicted that overuse would result in the evolution of resistance in bacteria. Mutation and natural selection was all that was needed to do so.

This would be a form of survival on the bacteria's part...

God created nature so that it would bring forth all of that and much, much more. Pretty amazing, no?

 

[Edward]

I always suspected that man's dating procedures were wrong somehow, which wouldn't be a big thing...for man to be wrong abut something.

The couple things that just make it sound weird for evolution to be possible. If God created the earth and man & animals, why would He design evolution to take over after creation...to fix His mistakes that He made during creation?! That's pretty far fetched. Another one that's never been answered by any pro-evolution people is that, for a mutation to occur, there would have to be new information added to the organism for it to evolve into something new. Where did the information come from?!

And the big one which still stands to this day...Which came first, the DNA or the RNA? You need DNA for the RNA, and you need RNA to make the DNA. You don't them out of thin air.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Then lets have these multitude of genes that are arising all the time...

Here is one example.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49688939_New_Genes_in_Drosophila_Quickly_Become_Essential

as o de-evolution, google blind cave fish

Fish going blind is not De-evolution. The fish adapted over generation to live in dark caves. Eye sight wasn't a trait that was key to survival so mutations that made the eyes obsolete or non functional survived. That is just regular evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

I always suspected that man's dating procedures were wrong somehow, which wouldn't be a big thing...for man to be wrong abut something.

Since it's been directly verified, there's really no issue there. You might as well say that man is wrong about gravity.

The couple things that just make it sound weird for evolution to be possible. If God created the earth and man & animals, why would He design evolution to take over after creation...

Evolution is His creation. It didn't "take over", it remains God's action in the world today, as it always was.

to fix His mistakes that He made during creation?!

There's an interesting clue that engineers have discovered. For very complex problems, Darwinian evolution works better than design. Some things that resist optimization with design have been done by genetic algorithms that operate by random mutation and natural selection.

As usual, God knew best.

Another one that's never been answered by any pro-evolution people is that, for a mutation to occur, there would have to be new information added to the organism for it to evolve into something new.

Yep. That's how the new information in those engineering solutions was produced.

Where did the information come from?!

Mutation and natural selection. The fact is, any new mutation in a population of organisms increases the information. Would you like to see the math?

And the big one which still stands to this day...Which came first, the DNA or the RNA?

Evolution is not about the origin of life. If (as Darwin suggested) God just created the first organisms supernaturally, evolution would work exactly as it does now.

 

[Edward]

Since it's been directly verified, there's really no issue there. You might as well say that man is wrong about gravity.

Directly verified how and by whom?

Evolution is His creation. It didn't "take over", it remains God's action in the world today, as it always was.

So He designed evolution into the organisms to make correction?...to the less than perfect creation that, once created, needed modifications?!
That's actually kinda funny.

There's an interesting clue that engineers have discovered. For very complex problems, Darwinian evolution works better than design. Some things that resist optimization with design have been done by genetic algorithms that operate by random mutation and natural selection.

As usual, God knew best.

Works better than God's design?! Lol. So are you saying that God's creation(s) resisted optimization of being created in perfection> Huh?! Wow.

Yep. That's how the new information in those engineering solutions was produced.

How?

Mutation and natural selection. The fact is, any new mutation in a population of organisms increases the information. Would you like to see the math?

So...the fact that an organism needs a mutation magically creates the new information too? That does not make sense. Sure, show me the math.

Evolution is not about the origin of life. If (as Darwin suggested) God just created the first organisms supernaturally, evolution would work exactly as it does now.

Soo...dodge.

 

[Cygnus]

(Cygnus denies beneficial mutations)

(Barbarian cites three and notes that there are many more.



You denied something that occurs in nature. I showed you three examples of precisely what you claimed could not be. Would you like to see some more?

All you presented was a form of chemical evolutionism....NEVER morphological to the point that the trend was added to, to the point that a trend developed or completely changed.
Here's the way you think....if you take the wheels off of a skateboard it'll slide down a snowy hill easier. This loss of information improved the trip down the hill. You always work backwards Barbarian.

 

[Cygnus]

They were. In that case, God used mutation and natural selection. You're willing to let God be the creator, but you're having trouble letting Him do it His way.

the Bible doesn't teach this and you know it....stop being deceptive. Biblically speaking birds pre-dated dinosaurs. They were created on different days.
The female of humans was formed from the males rib....which surely isn't evolutionism where God used mutations and natural selection.

 

[Cygnus]

Here is one example.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49688939_New_Genes_in_Drosophila_Quickly_Become_Essential

You do now they've been watching fruit flies for about 100 years now..if not more...and the fruit fly is still a fruit fly? Nothing new except for a misplaced wing or antenna. Which you marvel over.

Fish going blind is not De-evolution.

When you LOSE the ability to code for an eye...it's de-evolution.

 

[Milk-Drops]

You do now they've been watching fruit flies for about 100 years now..if not more...and the fruit fly is still a fruit fly?

Your argument was that new genes don't arise and are beneficial. I then produced a paper that demonstrates that yes there are beneficial genes that do arise. What do you say in defense of your original argument?

Nothing new except for a misplaced wing or antenna. Which you marvel over.

Then you didn't read the paper. Your argument is that they are still fruit flies. The theory of Evolution states that organisms change and are modified by genetic factors through generations and population mechanics. You statement that they are just fruit flies is the same as saying the split between feline and canine is just more vertabrates. The fact that whole species of flies were bread and some even became isolated breading wise shows exactly how speciation works.

When you LOSE the ability to code for an eye...it's de-evolution.

Yet you ignore the new traits of being able to live in extremely mineral dense water. Advancing of other senses to deal with blindness, and the changes in metabolism that allow the fish to thrive in that enviroment. Your knowledge of the subject is shorty and your ignorance is not a strength. If you want to argue that science and the literal reading of the old testament don't match up, that is one thing. Pretending you know more than you do about biology and trying to tear down hundreds of years of research and findings just because it doesn't fit with your view is a completely different scenario.

 

[GodsGrace]

Irreducibly complex, too. Shortly after the new enzyme evolved, a series of mutation produced a regulator, so that the enzyme is only active when the substrate is present. As a result a three-part system evolved such that it only works if all three elements are present. Remove any one of them, and it doesn't work.



There are many sorts of bacteria, and many sorts of antibiotic resistance. Interestingly, Flemming, after discovering penicillin, predicted that overuse would result in the evolution of resistance in bacteria. Mutation and natural selection was all that was needed to do so.



God created nature so that it would bring forth all of that and much, much more. Pretty amazing, no?

Yes Barb.
It IS amazing.
It's also amazing how you seem to know everything.
Do you have any neighbors you could actually talk to??
LOL
You're too intelligent!!