-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics- what is the Creationist explanation?
- Thread starter chair
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Once again, variations from the original kinds is not a problem for creationism. It is in the genes already.
Chickens have been made to grow teeth. This was done by reactivating genes that were active in earlier dinosaurs but are suppressed in modern birds.
Would you say this is an example of what you are talking about? The teeth were certainly 'in the genes already'.
Stuart
Right Divider
Body part
The idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs is silly. But, then again, evolution is silly.
It's you going off the rails again. :dizzy:
Do you agree that because chickens can be made to grow teeth, because they have teeth genes, that this is an example of what you were claiming, that there is variation because of what is 'already in the genes', or not?
Your answer would help me to understand what you mean by your claim about variation present in the genes.
Stuart
Right Divider
Body part
So you want me to confirm "if it's in the genes, it's in the genes"?
Yes, because birds that had teeth and losing them (either due to mutations or to fast adaptation (in other words, beaks without teeth being better for them than beaks with teeth) (which is still a loss, or at least, not a gain but only a lateral shift in the genes, of information)) perfectly fits within the view that teeth were in the genes already, and not evidence of evolution.
I think evolution could reasonably be called 'a lateral shift in the genes'. But at least we would have to agree that it is a gain for a chicken (or its wild junglefowl version) to not have teeth.
In your opinion, what caused the change from chicken ancestors with teeth to modern chickens with no teeth?
Stuart
It would be helpful if you could explain how, in your opinion, your claim about variation contained 'in the genes already' relates to chickens that can be made to grow teeth when deactivated genes are reactivated.
Stuart
Right Divider
Body part
This requires no opinion on my part. If it's in the genes, it's in the genes.
Why would chickens have deactivated genes for teeth?
Right Divider
Body part
Who cares? Do you have a point? Or is this just more of your silliness?
You should care, if you believe in intelligent design. Why would a designer, working only a few thousand years ago, bother to create a species with a gene that deactivates the formation of teeth? There must be an obvious answer to this obvious question. Did the designer do this to "confound the wise" perhaps?
By the way, it isn't just chickens that have this, it's all birds: https://www.audubon.org/news/how-birds-lost-their-teeth
Dinosaurs are reptiles. Birds are also reptiles. As such, they are related. This suggests a common ancestry between them. However, birds, unlike non-avian dinosaurs, do not have teeth. This did not suggest common ancestry--until it was discovered that tooth formation in birds existed at some point in the past but was deactivated somewhere along the line, which points back to common ancestry between birds and non-avian dinosaurs.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
You worry too much. No, I don't need to care. But you seem to need to know every detail even though we just don't know. Does it bother you not to know everything that there is to know?
Gee.... you don't suppose that maybe chickens are of the "bird kind" do you?
Baloney.
Fairy tales are for children... grow up.
Last edited:
How many "bird kinds" are there?
That is a very well reasoned and intelligent argument you have there...
It's sort of the point of natural science to understand the natural world.
Right Divider
Body part
Right Divider
Body part
And yet many things are still not understood.
The arrogance of the materialist naturalists is a thing of legend.
And yet there were a great many more things that were not understood 500 years ago, as compared with today. Natural science has made a great deal of progress since the birth of the scientific method. If you would be honest, you would admit that you are very grateful for that fact.