Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Clete]

As predicted, you have no formal education in matters you are laughably pretending to be an expert in.


Your act is transparent bud

Liar.

 

[Clete]

Buy this book "The Gene" by Siddhartha Mukherjee. A world leading expert explains evolution and shows the mis-conception trumpeted in popular media.

Very briefly: Change requires two things:-
1. A non harmful mutation in a gene.
2. An environment where the life form with a mutation has an advantage and so survives in larger numbers.

Evolution is a quick process, nothing like the popular version put out in the mainstream.

Siddhartha Mukherjee's book is excellent: Informative to the non-expert; Authorative; At times, heart breaking.

Not the least bit interested.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Liar.

Then what is it. Prove me wrong


YECs seem to have a problem with proof

 

[Lon]

Ink is not a code...although intelligence can use ink to create a code. Codes that transmit information requiring to be transcribed and acted upon ALWAYS have a code maker.

:up:
Whatever capacity we have for surviving, must have a 'reason' for surviving No too few seem to understand Colossians 1:17 very well, nor John 15:5. It is like seeing a painting and ignoring the painter or denying existence while coming up with theories of 'how' that painting came into existence in such an incredibly complex manner. Some things are their own evidence and explanation. Looking for the absurd 'theory?' Horrible, not priceless :noway: Using evolution to hide from what is more than apparent? Horrible, as well. It is as bad as it looks on paper and as clearly horrible as that.

 

[The Barbarian]

:up:
Whatever capacity we have for surviving, must have a 'reason' for surviving

What reason does a frog have for surviving?

No too few seem to understand Colossians 1:17 very well, nor John 15:5. It is like seeing a painting and ignoring the painter or denying existence while coming up with theories of 'how' that painting came into existence in such an incredibly complex manner. Some things are their own evidence and explanation. Looking for the absurd 'theory?'

What makes you think that Christians don't generally accept this? It's not just the relative few that reject evolution.

 

[Stripe]

I can only read what is written.

Great. Then read my answer. :up:

You have a track record of lying about answering in some unspecified past post.

There's an accusation you can't back up. Link to one post where I have said I already answered something but didn't.

That dishonesty won't work.

When you present a way to measure information based on your ... description, then we will have something to discuss.

Nope. There's plenty to discuss. We know why you don't want to engage with the substance of what I say.

Definition and measurement techniques have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Lon]

What reason does a frog have for surviving?

Colossians 1:17 ONLY for the glory of God.

What makes you think that Christians don't generally accept this?

Either that frog has a lot of information to be able to survive (DNA) or something outside itself (whatever life it happens to be) desires it to continue to exist or some combination, but NONE without reason or purpose to do so.

It's not just the relative few that reject evolution.

Agree. However, there are no few that embrace Colossians 1:17 in entirety. A few think that God isn't involved with His creation. I believe Colossians 1:17 means without Him, atoms are no longer functional. He sustains it all.

Now, a 'relative few' evolutionists (tend to be atheists) do miss that a frog exists because there is 'reason' for the frog to exist. His/her theory misses the forest for so many trees that exist and 'adapted.' A tree cannot 'adapt' it has no mind, desire, or will to do so. It goes back to either that information being pre-coded into such, OR one who pushes the switch outside of that possibility or, perhaps, a combination. Colossians 1:17 and John 15:5, imho, means no 'autonomous' or fully programmed to accomplish anything. You are an intelligent man that says he believes his Creator. It is my opinion, you cannot escape Colossians 1:17 or John 15:5. They are literal.

 

[6days]

it is interesting that you assert that virtually all mutations are deleterious...

Yes, it is interesting, although what I said was "mutations generally are all considered to nearly neutral, or slightly deleterious.... they destroy pre-existing info."

Your references also don't refer to loss of information, so I don't know where you got that idea.

I only provided one reference saying "Many articles, even those from the evolutionary belief system will say something like "In all populations, genetic drift occurs constantly—species gradually lose genetic variation"


It is odd that you seem to suggest that a loss of genetic variation in a population is also not a loss of genetic information.

The paper says this; "We have known for some time that genetic variation is an absolute necessity in order for species to be able to thrive." Where do got think this variation in populations comes from if it isn't mutations?

Mutations destroy the pre-exisiting information.

 

[gcthomas]

Yes, it is interesting, although what I said was "mutations generally are all considered to nearly neutral, or slightly deleterious.... they destroy pre-existing info."

I only provided one reference saying "Many articles, even those from the evolutionary belief system will say something like "In all populations, genetic drift occurs constantly—species gradually lose genetic variation"


It is odd that you seem to suggest that a loss of genetic variation in a population is also not a loss of genetic information.

Mutations destroy the pre-exisiting information.

Mutations increase populating genetic variation. Since you insist that decreased genetic variation corresponds to loss of information then you must conclude that mutations do the reverse.

 

[Stripe]

Mutations increase populating genetic variation.

And as shown, variation is bad.

Since you insist that decreased genetic variation corresponds to loss of information then you must conclude that mutations do the reverse.

Looks like you're making things up again.

 

[gcthomas]

And as shown, variation is bad.



Looks like you're making things up again.

Try to stay with the discussion, Stripe. We are not discussing 'goodness', but whether mutations can increase information. 6days seems to accept both that mutations can increase genetic variation and that more generic variation corresponds to more information, while denying that mutations can increase information.

You, on the other hand, keep trying to prevent discussions getting to the critical issues for the purposes of obfuscation. But I'm not surprised.

 

[Stripe]

We are not discussing 'goodness', but whether mutations can increase information.

Mutations are always bad for information.

6days seems to accept both that mutations can increase genetic variation and that more generic variation corresponds to more information, while denying that mutations can increase information.

Variation is bad for information.

You, on the other hand, keep trying to prevent discussions getting to the critical issues for the purposes of obfuscation. But I'm not surprised.

I've laid out very clearly what we believe and how it can be tested.

 

[gcthomas]

Mutations are always bad for information.

Variation is bad for information.

I've laid out very clearly what we believe and how it can be tested.

You most certainly haven't laid out how it could be tested. Now run along, the grown ups are discussing complicated things.

 

[Stripe]

You most certainly haven't laid out how it could be tested.

Of course I have.

As with every other Darwinist available, you run for the hills whenever the topic of science emerges through the spam.

 

[gcthomas]

Of course I have.

As with every other Darwinist available, you run for the hills whenever the topic of science emerges through the spam.

Yep, the sort of running for the hills that has me trying to get you to stick to the discussion and to substantiate assertions, whilst providing mathematical demonstrations of my own claims.

You are quite unhinged, Stripe.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yep, the sort of running for the hills that has me trying to get you to stick to the discussion and to substantiate assertions, whilst providing mathematical demonstrations of my own claims.

You are quite unhinged, Stripe.

If there's a guy on the street corner yelling at the fire hydrant, who's crazier, him or the guy who tries to engage him in a rational discussion? :think:

 

[6days]

Mutations are always bad for information.

Correct. Spelling mistakes in a Winnie the Pooh book, will never produce a manual for the next space shuttle.

Variation is bad for information.

I think what you mean.... and what GC and Jose don't understand is that selection / breeding produces variety, through a process of elimination? We could theoretically eliminate information from a wolf by breeding until we end up with some type of a mutant wiener dog. The mutations have produced variety of dogs who do not have the full complement of genetic variation that the original kind had.

 

[Jose Fly]

what GC and Jose don't understand is that selection / breeding produces variety, through a process of elimination?

No, what I don't understand is how creationists can keep making claims about relative amounts of "genetic information", even though they have no idea at all how to measure such a thing.

 

[Stripe]

Yep, the sort of running for the hills that has me trying to get you to stick to the discussion and to substantiate assertions, whilst providing mathematical demonstrations of my own claims.

Nope.

You've completely ignored what I've presented. You favor things like this:

You are quite unhinged, Stripe.

If there's a guy on the street corner yelling at the fire hydrant, who's crazier, him or the guy who tries to engage him in a rational discussion? :think:

No, what I don't understand is how creationists can keep making claims about relative amounts of "genetic information", even though they have no idea at all how to measure such a thing.

Darwinists will do anything to avoid discussing the issues.

I think what you mean.... and what GC and Jose don't understand is that selection / breeding produces variety, through a process of elimination?

I think that's essentially correct, but worded a little awkwardly.

Adaptation produces variety. It seems that variety is assumed to be an increase in information by evolutionists.

We could theoretically eliminate information from a wolf by breeding until we end up with some type of a mutant wiener dog. The mutations have produced variety of dogs who do not have the full complement of genetic variation that the original kind had.

Right.

The predictions of the Darwinist and the creationist could be compared in the lab pretty easily.

 

[Stripe]

No, what I don't understand is how creationists can keep making claims about relative amounts of "genetic information", even though they have no idea at all how to measure such a thing.

That's because you've evicted thought in your desperation that ideas you hate be suppressed.

Claims are to be tested against logic, laws and observation, not by how easy they are to measure.

Stupid, stupid Darwinists.