Creation vs. Evolution

[Hedshaker]

Hedshaker,

You should know better! Evolution does not fully complement factual evidence. Creationism does. It is not bolux or botox, or whatever you want to call it. It is OEC just as close as it is YEC. Just a difference in the amount of Years!

No, I had it right the first time. Creationism is complete nonsense outdated by centuries. Now you're going to say, no it isn't..... and so we find ourselves in a Monty Python argument.

BTW, I've been doing some basic arithmetic. You joined the forum last June and told us Jesus was coming in about 2 years. It's now 9/10 months later and it's still about two years.

I know maths isn't my strong point but surly you invisible friend should now be with us in the next 14 months or so.

But then again, what's a year between friends and deities atrol:

 

[Tyrathca]

The original pairs of living things would have a very rich genetic code for all the diversity to come. The biodiversity would be a dispersion of traits from kind to sub-kind, species to sub-species.

Do you have any education in genetics? If so can you please explain how you could pack extra diversity into an organism. Specifically how you could get more than two alleles per gene per organism.

The geology of Genesis is flood and catastrophic so there would be many fossils in the large layers that would be laid down by water--sedimentary. And lots of coal from large areas of plant life. Which is what we see.

Yes but why are the fossils organised? As in certain types of organisms are typically found with certain other types but not with others. Wouldn't a catastrophic flood create a chaotic mixing of organisms or at least organise them by mass/shape etc?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Do you have any education in genetics?

None that would impress you, I'd warrant, but I'll explain the error in your thinking anyway.

If so can you please explain how you could pack extra diversity into an organism. Specifically how you could get more than two alleles per gene per organism.

As long as there's diversity within the gene pool of the species, it doesn't all have to be packed into one organism. Unless we're talking about species that reproduce asexually (which, generally speaking, aren't very diverse).

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

No, I had it right the first time. Creationism is complete nonsense outdated by centuries. Now you're going to say, no it isn't..... and so we find ourselves in a Monty Python argument.

BTW, I've been doing some basic arithmetic. You joined the forum last June and told us Jesus was coming in about 2 years. It's now 9/10 months later and it's still about two years.

I know maths isn't my strong point but surly you invisible friend should now be with us in the next 14 months or so.

But then again, what's a year between friends and deities atrol:

I hope you you don't mind me calling you a 'Jerk?" It's just
my way of being friendly to 'Jerks!" I saw what you posted
in a 'newbies' personal area (implied bad language) You're
rather 'boorish' are you not?

 

[Tyrathca]

None that would impress you, I'd warrant, but I'll explain the error in your thinking anyway.

I'm thinking you barely have a high school level understanding. Am I right?

As long as there's diversity within the gene pool of the species, it doesn't all have to be packed into one organism. Unless we're talking about species that reproduce asexually (which, generally speaking, aren't very diverse).

So you get around it by huge populations and somehow managing to keep them still able to breed together with sufficient offspring to avoid the loss of many variants?

Soooo..... no noah's ark?

 

[Jukia]

None that would impress you, I'd warrant, but I'll explain the error in your thinking anyway.



As long as there's diversity within the gene pool of the species, it doesn't all have to be packed into one organism. Unless we're talking about species that reproduce asexually (which, generally speaking, aren't very diverse).

But the gene pools after the ark were tiny.
Cats for example, are they unclean--1 pair, or clean--7 pair. In either case your cat kind starts with a pretty small gene pool

 

[noguru]

None that would impress you, I'd warrant, but I'll explain the error in your thinking anyway.



As long as there's diversity within the gene pool of the species, it doesn't all have to be packed into one organism. Unless we're talking about species that reproduce asexually (which, generally speaking, aren't very diverse).

With all due respect, have you ever considered the error might be in your thinking? Or has God saved you of that?

 

[Hedshaker]

I hope you you don't mind me calling you a 'Jerk?" It's just
my way of being friendly to 'Jerks!" I saw what you posted
in a 'newbies' personal area (implied bad language) You're
rather 'boorish' are you not?

I'm a little confused. I just looked in Newbe Central and don't see any post by me there, or maybe I'm missing something. Wouldn't be the first time.

I recently had a pm from a total newbe that ended with him\her asking me for money so he could attend a debate with atheists. Apparently a booming voice told him to look at the computer screen which was magically showing this forum. Needless to say my reply to him was along the lines of: best not attend any debate with atheists if you are so stupid as to think anyone would buy that bs story. But that was via pm.

Other than that. No, I don't give a whit for what you think.

Cheers :cheers:

 

[Stripe]

So you get around it by huge populations and somehow managing to keep them still able to breed together with sufficient offspring to avoid the loss of many variants?

Nope.

Diversity is a product of degradation. The animals that entered the ark did not carry diversity, they carried integrity -- the ability to adapt pretty much as it was created.

The more diverse a population's genome is, the lower its integrity will be.

 

[Stripe]

I'm a little confused.

We know.

And if we didn't, we would because you are talking to Cadry.

 

[Tyrathca]

Nope.

Diversity is a product of degradation. The animals that entered the ark did not carry diversity, they carried integrity -- the ability to adapt pretty much as it was created.

The more diverse a population's genome is, the lower its integrity will be.

Tell that to One Eyed Jack.

By the way I presume then that a population of clones would have the highest integrity? Though also an insanely high vulnerability to disease...

 

[Stripe]

I presume then that a population of clones would have the highest integrity?

:AMR: Whose biology training needs questioning?

A population of clones would have zero capacity to breed, let alone adapt.

 

[Tyrathca]

:AMR: Whose biology training needs questioning?

A population of clones would have zero capacity to breed, let alone adapt.

Well I assumed a clones of a male and female so they could breed, duh. I understand how sexual reproduction works. And the inability to adapt is precisely my point, no diversity would be this population and it would not be able to adapt to diseases (thus part of the vulnerability).

 

[One Eyed Jack]

With all due respect, have you ever considered the error might be in your thinking?

Of course I have.

Or has God saved you of that?

I don't even know what you mean by this.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Well I assumed a clones of a male and female so they could breed, duh. I understand how sexual reproduction works. And the inability to adapt is precisely my point, no diversity would be this population and it would not be able to adapt to diseases (thus part of the vulnerability).

What makes you think clones went aboard the ark?

 

[Tyrathca]

What makes you think clones went aboard the ark?

I don't, this was a reply to Stripe's comment about the "integrity" of a species. It was a hypothetical example to show what his claim would logically mean, and show it was absurd.

It was independent of my comment to you regarding the ark.

 

[Stripe]

The inability to adapt is precisely my point, no diversity would be this population and it would not be able to adapt to diseases (thus part of the vulnerability).

Diversity is your notion of what is required for a population to flourish. However, your notion is demonstrably wrong.

Integrity is what is required. Two well designed creatures can produce great variety, but two creatures from that great variety cannot produce the same results.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I don't, this was a reply to Stripe's comment about the "integrity" of a species. It was a hypothetical example to show what his claim would logically mean, and show it was absurd.

Well, obviously then, you wouldn't have these problems arising with animals that came off the ark, as they weren't clones.

It was independent of my comment to you regarding the ark.

It seemed to me that your comment about an inability to adapt being precisely your point would have been in reference to the animals that came off the ark.

 

[Stripe]

Well, obviously then, you wouldn't have these problems arising with animals that came off the ark, as they weren't clones.

So much for his implication that your biology education was insufficient. :chuckle:

It seemed to me that your comment about an inability to adapt being precisely your point would have been in reference to the animals that came off the ark.

Evolutionists need to learn that an alternative idea does not necessarily rely upon the concepts they have built for themselves.

Diversity is bad for the overall information content. If you have a book and copy it a thousand times and then have many people continue to make copies of the copies, the descendants are only ever going to diminish in their ability to inform us of the contents of the original book.

If you can show that a copy is a closer descendant of the original, it will, generally speaking, be a more accurate copy.

Diversity does not generate integrity. Only good design can do that.

 

[alwight]

Imaginary Global Flud meets Stripe's wilful misunderstanding of genetics [/thread]