The bible tells it's readers that they should be prepared to answer the questions asked by the heathens. Lolownt
The debating skills of evolutionists
- Thread starter Carico
- Start date
The bible tells it's readers that they should be prepared to answer the questions asked by the heathens. Lolownt
By using the term "information" rather than evolution, you don't really add anything to your argument. Mutations that are beneficial result in a change to the DNA sequence. They, along with copying errors, are the source of this additional information Dan talks about. Note that the genome is also full of apparently useless information, and getting rid of it is part of evolution as well. More complex creatures tend to have a longer sequence, but the relationship is not fixed.
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
you are getting warmer, but still not completely getting it. Beneficial mutations do in fact occur. They even occur in the germ cells and this has been observed. However this is not the same thing as gaining new information. Sickle Cell is a genetic disease which does offer at least one positive benefit, immunity to malaria. But it doesn't result in new information, but the loss of information. The round cell is now misshapped. A back mutation is an example of a gain in information, but you really aren't getting anywhere you haven't been. Gene duplications are not new information. Two copies of the same newspaper doesn't really add much to the news.
I am glad you mention "apparently" before mentioning "junk DNA". You will learn soon enough that this is another vestigial organ boondoggle.
Now here is your challenge. Give me a sequence of observed mutations in the germ cell which add information. If you cannot do this, then you must admit that evolution, ameoba to man, has never been observed and therefore doesn't qualify as a scientific theory.
That depends on the adaptation involved. An inherited change in the genome whose expression is an adaptation is an evolutionary step - evolution.dan said:
Mutations and other additions to a genome have been observed, that add information previously not present. These changes have been selected, and the result a more robustly reproducing genome. The rate and nature of the these changes is easily capable of duplicating the evolutionary record observed - the actual problem is otherwise: we observe long periods of relative stability in the record, when the background rate of genomic change and stochastic drift must be countered somehow.dan said:
Except when it isn't, of course. If you are just assuming the change was always "downward", you should compare that unlikely hypothesis with wideranging and thorough observationsdan said:
Last I checked, the amount of new DNA involved in antibiotic resistance sometimes added up to a third of the bacterial genome.dan said:
A much larger change than the difference between albatrosses and penguins.
And that is without symbiosis, incomplete ingestion, parasitism, or any of the other common ways in which organisms pick up enormous amounts of new DNA in chunks.
Part of the info is rate and quantity, so that duplicated genes do provide new info. But that is trivial, compared with the new info obtainable through the accumulation of different mutations in the two copies.dan said:
But no doubt you are familiar with this common knowledge, from your many years of teaching evolution.
As with so many of your assertions, a false statement.dan said:
Why so many species of Bacteria
Come on. I'm sure I could root around in the Bible myself and find something better than this. If you want to get your science from the Bible, the Bible should provide an answer.
Oh, and the Noah's ark question.
Big animals were not the only creatures which needed saving from drowning.
Apart from Bacteria, what about plants which could not survive 40 days of flood?
Did Noah keep a seed bank?
Come on. I'm sure I could root around in the Bible myself and find something better than this. If you want to get your science from the Bible, the Bible should provide an answer.
Oh, and the Noah's ark question.
Big animals were not the only creatures which needed saving from drowning.
Apart from Bacteria, what about plants which could not survive 40 days of flood?
Did Noah keep a seed bank?
Actually bacterias have evolved ..... some are now even multiresistent towards antibiotics ..... no doubt, part of gods plan for humanity ....
Are you familiar with something called DNA? The immunity was in the DNA already. That's called survival of the fittest not evolution. But I guess taking the weakest members of society out and murdering them is all part of the Darwinist plan.
Survival of the fittest is not evolution. See above.
Last edited:
If your referring to OIM post that is the most common reaction.
I understand one thing very clearly; You haven't a clue what evolution is. You've continually misrepresented it's definition repeatedly.
Sorry pal, "survival of the fittest" is one of the primary keys to evolution.
Take you nose out of the comic book babble and face reality. You're trying to make reality out of your fictitious God and the fictitious stories about it.
Actually pick up a real book about the science of Evolution and study it before you try to sound like you know something about it. You very obviously haven't.
So define evolution then if you disagree with my defintion, which presumably you don't even know because I haven't defined it other than saying it's not survival of the fittest.
I accept survival of the fittest. That is obvious. It is also obvious that pigs will never "evolve" wings (unless a miracle occurs).
That's your problem, man. You keep throwing out those stupid, exaggerated statements to make your argument sound more plausible. No one has ever said anything about pigs evolving into having wings. That's your injection of something stupid so that you sound better. I have a clue for you; It doesn't make you sound any better.
I don't need to re-define Evolution. It's been defined by the professionals in science already.
So what the hell DO you believe in? In one post, you say CLEARLY:
"That's called survival of the fittest not evolution. Survival of the fittest is not evolution."
Now, when challenged, you backtrack and totally change your story to:
"I accept survival of the fittest. That is obvious."
Personally? I think you're scrambling to make your entire belief sound like something other than what it is: fiction.
You're desperate. You're trying any claims. You're trying any type of exaggerations. If you had a reasonable argument, you'd have already presented it. You haven't. You keep spouting nonsense and babble quotes.
Drop the comic book pal. Get your head back into reality and just enjoy this life. It's the only one you're going to have.
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
why offer a point by point rebuttal which says nothing other than, "you're wrong". You are a "senior poster" here, surely you can do better than this. If you can provide examples (not theoretical) of a sequence of observed information gaining mutations in the germ cell of any organism do it and quit pretending that you are offering something other than the smokescreen you have here. I provided a debate between two highly qualified scientists, neither one a creationist and one who routinely posts on talk origins, the propaganda tool for the evolutionists. Yet Dr. Max was at a loss to come up with even one example of an information gaining mutation in the germ cell of any organism!!!!
Stop now, take a deep breath, and consider this fact and stop with the propaganda for just a moment. This means that the general theory of evolution, particles to people, amoeaba to man, fish to smith, is unsupported by science!!! The emperor is naked. All you have are just so stories, a popular belief in a fairytale for grown ups.
This is no creationist conspiracy, it is an embarrassing fact of science. A lot of otherwise very intelligent people, such as many on this forum, have been duped.
Stop now, take a deep breath, and consider this fact and stop with the propaganda for just a moment. This means that the general theory of evolution, particles to people, amoeaba to man, fish to smith, is unsupported by science!!! The emperor is naked. All you have are just so stories, a popular belief in a fairytale for grown ups.
This is no creationist conspiracy, it is an embarrassing fact of science. A lot of otherwise very intelligent people, such as many on this forum, have been duped.
"senior poster" just means you have posted a certain number of posts.
OilIsMastery: I didn't ask you to redefine it. I asked you to define it. Either you aren't capable of doing so or you're just afraid to.
NGM: Accusing someone of being "afraid" to define a word is a silly, childish accusation. Are you in fact, so young that you have to resort to that type of immature argument?
I'm fully capable of telling you the definition of "Evolution".
Which of the millions of definitions do you use is my question. If you're afraid to debate that's ok. I'll understand.
"Millions of definitions" Again, you say something that's patently ridiculous. Are you under the impression that there are literally "Millions" of different definitions for the word "Evolution"? If so, then you're even less intelligent than I already think you are.
Once again, I'll explain to you that inferring a person is "afraid to debate" is a childish statement that is nothing more than an immature taunt that's suitable to someone less than 10 years of age. Are you that young? If so, then I forgive you for it's usage.
I believe that these sentences describe what Evolution means to me.
A process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage).
The sequence of events involved in the development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms.
The process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
NGM: Accusing someone of being "afraid" to define a word is a silly, childish accusation. Are you in fact, so young that you have to resort to that type of immature argument?
I'm fully capable of telling you the definition of "Evolution".
Which of the millions of definitions do you use is my question. If you're afraid to debate that's ok. I'll understand.
"Millions of definitions" Again, you say something that's patently ridiculous. Are you under the impression that there are literally "Millions" of different definitions for the word "Evolution"? If so, then you're even less intelligent than I already think you are.
Once again, I'll explain to you that inferring a person is "afraid to debate" is a childish statement that is nothing more than an immature taunt that's suitable to someone less than 10 years of age. Are you that young? If so, then I forgive you for it's usage.
I believe that these sentences describe what Evolution means to me.
A process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage).
The sequence of events involved in the development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms.
The process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
NGM, can't you just humour him and define it.
Just use a good dictionary.
I know it's annoying to be asked to define common words in an argument,
but when it is a key word it can be helpful.
His argument may be going somewhere.
Here is a definition I found when googling "definition of evolution"
It was the second result.
"Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
From - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
Would you be happy with this to prevent further stalemate?
Just use a good dictionary.
I know it's annoying to be asked to define common words in an argument,
but when it is a key word it can be helpful.
His argument may be going somewhere.
Here is a definition I found when googling "definition of evolution"
It was the second result.
"Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
From - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
Would you be happy with this to prevent further stalemate?
Last edited:
That remains to be seen.
What's patently ridiculous about millions of definitions? Can't count that high?
6.6 billion people. I imagine that if you asked them they would give you different definitions. But I guess you aren't intelligent enough to realize that.
Not sure what you mean by advanced but if that's how you define evolution then I would have to agree everything evolves and I imagine every creationist on Earth would agree to that. So that can't be the definition.
If you've never heard of Jack Chick, he's the guy that makes those gawdawful little cartoon pamphlets, where people are "educated" about god, the bible, Jesus, and all that stuff...
Most of his material is downright retarded propaganda intended to scare people in to believing in the christian god.
this is from my uncle. the third one is the one I want you all to read.
Most of his material is downright retarded propaganda intended to scare people in to believing in the christian god.
this is from my uncle. the third one is the one I want you all to read.
Evolution Unravels Itself in Front of Researcher's Eyes
E. coli bacteria mutate to metabolize citrate