Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[ThisIsMyUserName]

That is EXACTLY what creationists have been saying all along.

Well, to my understanding creationists insist on these "kinds" or "baramins" being literally created out of nowhere. That's not very scientific, now is it?

This all depends on which version of "evolution" we are talking about. Once AGAIN, creationists have no problem with real science.

Yet, there is only 1 version of evolution, which is science. And so far, I'm under the impression that this is what this entire thread is all about.



Could you perhaps give me all the different versions you have in mind?

 

[Right Divider]

Well, to my understanding creationists insist on these "kinds" or "baramins" being literally created out of nowhere. That's not very scientific, now is it?

Of course it is. More scientific than saying that non-living matter just came to life.

Yet, there is only 1 version of evolution, which is science. And so far, I'm under the impression that this is what this entire thread is all about.

Conflating "science" with "evolution" is a favorite pastime of those that like to play silly games.

Could you perhaps give me all the different versions you have in mind?

No thanks.

 

[6days]

Evolution says NOTHING about the origin of life. Furthermore it's perfectly possible that not all animals share the exact same common ancestor.

You are not totally correct. I think you mean that biological evolution and chemical evolution / abgiogenesis are separate topics? True, except even prominent evolutionists have blurred the lines between the two. It is interesting evolutionists don't protest against 'their own' discussing evolution from chemicals to chemists (life).



What say you .... ?[/QUOTE]

 

[Right Divider]

Tell us what scientists say about calculating genetic information in a population of living things. How do your "scientists" say it's done?

There was once ZERO life and NO DNA and now there are vast amounts of information in our DNA. If you want to know more, go learn. You're a smart guy.

I guess you think that God is still creating, even though He said that He was done.

 

[Stripe]

And undeniably, mutations add to that variability present in the gene pool. So natural selection can work with that too.

Nope.

Variability is a sign that the genome has degraded.

Evidence, remember?

Gee, how many times have we seen this go-round?Creationist asserts "no new genetic information".Someone asks "What is genetic information and how are you measuring it?"Creationist dodges, evades, and completely refuses to answer.How about you change that RD? How about you actually say what "genetic information" is, and explain how you're measuring it?

:darwinsm:

Another explanation, another chance for the Darwinists to ignore it, then demand the same explanation again.

Genetic information is the same as any other form of information: It is the capacity to produce instructions from which a separate entity can build.

Random changes to the instructions are always bad for information.

 

[Right Divider]

It's soooooo revealing that you see answering a basic question and explaining yourself as a set of "rules" that you have no intention of abiding by.

I predicted that you'd never say what "genetic information" is or how you're measuring it, and you've shown that I was correct.

Such is the nature of creationism.

Are you under the impression that DNA is not information?

From https://www.livescience.com/37247-dna.html

Deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA is a molecule that contains the instructions an organism needs to develop, live and reproduce. These instructions are found inside every cell, and are passed down from parents to their children.​

Do you disagree with this statement?

Do you think that mutations create instructions?

 

[gcthomas]

I don't have a personal definition, I just believe what scientists say.

Where then was no life, there was no information. Now there are vast amounts of it. That would be called an information increase.

As I showed you, there is no rule against information increasing, and I showed exactly how mutations can increase the information content of a genome.

You say you believe the scientists: which ones? Can you provide a link that I could take a look at? It would be nice to have sought of the same sources that you are using.

 

[Right Divider]

As I showed you, there is no rule against information increasing, and I showed exactly how mutations can increase the information content of a genome.

You say you believe the scientists: which ones? Can you provide a link that I could take a look at? It would be nice to have sought of the same sources that you are using.

Where did the initial information come from?

 

[Stripe]

Mutations can increase the information content of a genome.

Nope.

Evidence, remember?

Random changes can never produce information.

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you under the impression that DNA is not information?

In a manner of speaking, it is.

Do you think that mutations create instructions?

Not sure what you mean by "create instructions", but if you're asking whether or not mutations generate functional genetic sequences that weren't there before, then absolutely. We see it happen all the time.

Notice the difference between how you and I approach this subject? I ask you questions and you do everything you can to avoid answering. You ask me questions and I immediately answer.

That should tell you something.

 

[Right Divider]

In a manner of speaking, it is.

In what "manner of speaking"?

Not sure what you mean by "create instructions", but if you're asking whether or not mutations generate functional genetic sequences that weren't there before, then absolutely. We see it happen all the time.

The information in DNA are instructions for how to build the creature that has that DNA.

Where did the initial information in DNA come from?

Notice the difference between how you and I approach this subject? I ask you questions and you do everything you can to avoid answering. You ask me questions and I immediately answer.

You're awesome.

That should tell you something.

It's tells me that you're a sweetheart and we should all praise you greatly.

 

[Jose Fly]

In what "manner of speaking"?

First and foremost, DNA is basically chemistry.

Where did the initial information in DNA come from?

If you're asking how life on earth first originated, we don't know.

It's tells me that you're a sweetheart and we should all praise you greatly.

And what do you think your constant dodging and evading of questions says about you?

 

[Right Divider]

First and foremost, DNA is basically chemistry.

That the DNA information is encoded in chemicals does NOT change the FACT that it's information.

If you're asking how life on earth first originated, we don't know.

So the source of this information is unknowable?

Are you aware that the only known source for information is intelligence? Information does not create itself. That is a scientific fact.

And what do you think your constant dodging and evading of questions says about you?

That homey don't play dat.

 

[Stripe]

DNA is basically chemistry.

This is a platitude. It adds nothing to the conversation.

A book is basically paper.

To make sure you're not another Darwinist speaking in mumbo jumbo, put a "therefore" on the end of your declarations. Ie, DNA is basically chemistry, therefore... something.

 

[Jose Fly]

That the DNA information is encoded in chemicals does NOT change the FACT that it's information.

If "genetic information" = functional genetic sequences, then increases in genetic information is a repeatedly documented fact.

So the source of this information is unknowable?

I didn't say that. I said it is unknown. That's why there are ongoing research programs into the issue.

Are you aware that the only known source for information is intelligence? Information does not create itself. That is a scientific fact.

So you believe God created the "information" that allows pathogens to infect and cause disease? That allows various organisms to cause suffering and death?

That homey don't play dat.

Obviously answering simple questions is beyond your capabilities. That says a lot about you.

 

[SUTG]

Random changes can never produce information.

Says you.

 

[Right Divider]

If "genetic information" = functional genetic sequences, then increases in genetic information is a repeatedly documented fact.

So do you now understand that DNA is information?

I didn't say that. I said it is unknown. That's why there are ongoing research programs into the issue.

That information always comes from an intelligent source is a scientific fact that seems to have slipped your notice.

So you believe God created the "information" that allows pathogens to infect and cause disease? That allows various organisms to cause suffering and death?

This is irrelevant to the scientific fact that information always comes from and intelligent source.

Obviously answering simple questions is beyond your capabilities. That says a lot about you.

I have no problem with being called stupid by someone like you.

 

[Stripe]

Says you.

Take text, say a cake recipe. Randomly change letters and numbers. Enter the resulting cakes in bake-offs.

Take the winning recipes and randomly change them.

Repeat as many times as you like.

Watch what happens.

 

[Right Divider]

Says you.

Says science. Perhaps you'll be the first one in the history of science to prove otherwise. Go for it!

 

[Jose Fly]

So do you now understand that DNA is information?

I never said it wasn't. I've just been pointing out to you that "increases in genetic information" is a repeatedly documented fact. So I'm not really sure what your point is.

That information always comes from an intelligent source is a scientific fact that seems to have slipped your notice.

The moon is made of cheese.

See? Anyone can go into online forums and make empty assertions.

This is irrelevant to the scientific fact that information always comes from and intelligent source.

Your beliefs about God's role in creation are irrelevant to you? How odd.

But I guess this is consistent with your inability to answer questions.

I have no problem with being called stupid by someone like you.

I would imagine you're quite used to it by now.