JustIgnoreMe's Waterfall
Some Republican president could nominate Cruz - he at least has a legal background - though it would be tough for him to get through the confirmation process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ranked 24th in the regular season and 21st in the post season - above several Hall-of-Fame quarterbacks.
Traditional marriage was a plural arranged marriage to your cousin where the women were basically chattel.
So, good riddance.
I thought they already did....
If Americans came from Europeans, why are there still Europeans...?
Homelessness among veterans down 47%
Here's a link you can use:
Probably not as bad as liberals currently think and not as good as his supporters currently think.
For those taking this as anything more than a joke:
- Food stamps provide less than $1.40 per meal on average - ref
- A typical household pays about $37 a year for food stamps, school lunches, and WIC combined (that's about 10 cents a day) - ref
- 82% of all SNAP benefits (f.k.a. - food stamps) go to households with either a child, an elderly person, and/or a disabled person - ref
and Lieberman
(and Goldwater and Kerry were Christians from Jewish families)
Generally over, but people who have kids/pets have an excuse for using under.
That's what I thought, too - you must be slacking using your other account
The horse is the tenable belief in a god worthy of worship.
And, you're right - it is dead.
You're walking away, but not conceding - because that's how debate works - ah, now I see....
do not care about objective science.
You only get to make that claim after you post some...
If only there was some kind of site available for debating just these types of things... hmmm - maybe someday.
Your concession is accepted.
I have already found them and debated them on this site (probably even with you) - and those arguments did not hold up.
"Does the distance of the stars prove the Big Bang?"
Sight clarification here - I am looking for age of the universe being in the billions, not specifically the big bang.
Post them.
I won't ignore them like you consistently do (as you are doing right now) with the ones I've presented.
There is not a tricky god
Then either the universe is billions of years old, or there is some other alternative that you have yet to present.
If the answer is easy, why not post it?
Just take the first one - Distant starlight.
Either there is a tricky god who makes it seem like light is billions of years old when it isn't
, or the universe is billions of years old
, or ??
If you want to see the other side of the argument, you can look it up yourself.
And if you want my response to that response, just look it up. See how that works?
"There is no need in any field of science to believe in millions or billions of years of time since God created the Heavens and the Earth"
Except for these (and others):
----------------------------
Distant starlight
When you look at an object a mile away, the light has been traveling for five microseconds. When you look at the Sun, you are seeing light that has been in transit for 8.3 minutes. When astronomers look at the closest star to Earth (Alpha Centauri), which is roughly four light years away, they are seeing the star as it was four years ago from our perspective. When astronomers look at objects in the region of space known as the "Hubble ultra deep field", they are seeing the stars there as they were over ten billion years ago. Light we are receiving from these fields has been traveling for ten billion years, and the universe must have, therefore, existed long enough for that transit time to take place.
Helioseismology
The composition of the Sun changes as it ages. The differing composition changes the way sound waves behave inside the Sun. Using helioseismic methods (models of pressure waves in the sun), the age of the Sun can be inferred. Using this method, an Italian team came up with an age of 4.57 +/- 0.11 billion years.
Lunar retreat
South African rocks studied by geologist Ken Eriksson contain ancient tidal deposits indicating that at some point in the past, the Moon orbited "25-percent closer to Earth than it does today." The distance between the Earth and the Moon is 384,403 kilometers, so for Ken Eriksson's work to fit with a YEC timescale the Earth would have to have been receding at a speed greater than 15 kilometers per year. However, the Moon is currently receding from the Earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year.
Radioactive decay
Radioactive decay is the constant predictable decay of unstable atoms into more stable isotopes or elements. Measurements of atomic decay are generally considered one of the most accurate ways of measuring the age of an object, and these measurements form the basis for the scientifically accepted age of the Earth. There are many different variations of the radiometric dating technique such as radiocarbon, argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, potassium-argon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, uranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, and uranium-uranium, of which every single one will date objects far older than 10,000 years.
Because radiometric dating is one of the most commonly used methods of determining age, these techniques are under constant attack from young earth supporters. A few creationists, armed with only a cursory knowledge and a desire to think that they're better than scientific "experts", may misunderstand radiometric dating and just not believe it works. This is often accompanied by ignoring the high concordance of radiometric methods.
Length of the prehistoric day
Work by John W. Wells of Cornell University, New York has shown that certain pieces of extremely old coral show evidence of a growth rate which reflects a time when a year had 400 days of 22 hours each. Because the rate of change of the rotation of the Earth is relatively predictable—about 0.005 seconds per year—one can calculate the last time a year had 400 days, which was about 370 million years ago (which is also about the same as radiometric dating of the coral).
Naica megacrystals
The Naica Mine of Chihuahua, Mexico is the home of some of the largest gypsum crystals on earth. Specimens in the area have been found to exceed 11 meters in length and 1 meter in width. Based on classical crystal growth theory, these crystals are older than one million years.
Nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds
Nitrogen is the most common impurity in natural diamonds, sometimes by as much as 1% by mass. Recently formed diamonds, however, have very little nitrogen content. A major way synthetic diamonds are distinguished from natural ones is on the basis of nitrogen permeation. It takes long periods and high pressures for the nitrogen atoms to be squeezed into the diamond lattice. Research on the kinetics of the nitrogen aggregation at the University of Reading have suggested that a certain type of diamond, Ia diamonds, spend 200-2000 million years in the upper mantle.
Petrified wood
The process in which wood is preserved by permineralization, commonly known as petrification, takes extensive amounts of time. Gerald E. Teachout from the South Dakota Department of Game has written that "the mineral replacement process is very slow, probably taking millions of years".
It is true that in the laboratory petrification can be achieved in a matter of months, but petrification is far slower in natural conditions.
Relativistic jets
A relativistic jet is a jet of plasma that is ejected from some quasars and galaxy centers that have powerful magnetic fields. It is conjectured that the jets are driven by the twisting of magnetic fields in an accretion disk (the plate-like cloud of matter) found encircling many celestial objects. In super-massive bodies, immensely strong magnetic fields force plasma from the accretion disk into a jet that shoots away perpendicular to the face of the disk. In some cases, these columns of plasma have been found to extend far enough to refute the idea of a young universe.
For example, the quasar PKS 1127-145 has a relativistic jet exceeding one million light years in length. Because the speed of light cannot be exceeded, this column must be over one million years old. Moreover, these jets are generally billions of light years from Earth, meaning they were at least a million years old several billion years ago due, again, to the speed of light.
Seabed plankton layering
Fossils of dead plankton that layer on the ocean floor is used to gauge temperatures from the past, based on the chemical changes of Crenarchaeota, a primitive phylum of microbe. Much like ice layering and dendrochronology, researchers drill through the ocean floor to extract samples which indicate annual temperature fluctuations in the plankton fossils, or "chemical rings" as it were. A 2004 pioneering expedition to the Arctic Ocean near the North Pole collected samples dating back to over 56 million years of temperature dating.
Sedimentary varves
Varves are laminated layers of sedimentary rock that are most commonly laid down in glacial lakes. In the summer, light colored coarse sediment is laid down, while in the winter, as the water freezes and calms, fine dark silt is laid down. This cycle produces alternating bands of dark and light which are clearly discernible and represent, as a pair, one full year. As is consistent with the old earth view, many millions of varves have been found in some places. The Green River formation in eastern Utah is home to an estimated twenty million years worth of sedimentary layers.
The creationist response is that, instead of once per year, these varves formed many hundreds of times per year. There is, however, much evidence against accelerated formation of varves.
Pollen in varves is much more concentrated in the upper part of the dark layer, which is thought to represent spring. This is what would be expected if varves formed only once per year because pollen is much more common at this time.
In Lake Suigetsu, Japan, there is a seasonal die-off of diatoms (calcareous algae) that will form layers in the bottom of the lake along with the sedimentary varves. If the 29 thousand varves in the lake formed more than once per year, there should be several sediment layers for every layer of deceased algae. However, for every one white layer of algae in Lake Suigetsu, there is only one varve.
The varve thickness in the Green River formation correlates with both the 11 year sunspot cycle and the 21 thousand year orbital cycle of the earth.
Amino acid racemization
[N]aturally occurring amino acid molecules usually possess a carbon centre with four different groups joining it; a hydrogen atom, the amino group, the acid group (hence the name of the class of molecule) and a side chain, which is what distinguishes amino acids. In three dimensional space, such a molecular topology can occupy one of two configurations. Convention labels these as D or L, which are referred to as stereoisomers and are essentially mirror images of each other. The ratio of these two isomers is initially unequal. With only one exception [glycine], naturally occurring amino acids used in polypeptide synthesis are in the L form. Over time this will decay to a more balanced state in a process called racemization, where the ratio between L and D stereoisomers will be equal (a racemic mixture).
Measuring the degree of racemization and other known quantities can show an estimated age of the sample. This is measured fairly unambiguously by the fact that different stereoisomers rotate plane polarised light in opposite directions (it is this interaction that determines the D and L labels) and so a ratio can be determined by contrasting an unknown sample with a pure D or L sample and a racemic mixture. By measuring the racemization of the amino acid isoleucine, for example, objects can be dated up to several million years old.
While it is true that there can be great variability on the rate at which amino acids undergo racemization, the changes in humidity, temperature, and acidity required to make the oldest known samples conform to a young earth (under 6000 years) view are completely unreasonable. Such conditions would destroy all traces of the amino acids rather than just leave a racemic mixture of the molecules behind.
Continental drift
Based on the continuity of fossil deposits and other geological formations between the South American and African tectonic plates, there is much evidence that at some point in history the two continents were part of the same landmass. Because tectonic drift is an incredibly slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years. With modern technology, this can be accurately quantified. Satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year (roughly the speed of fingernail growth), which means that for these diverging continents to have been together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
Cosmogenic nuclide dating
The influx of cosmic rays onto the earth continually produces a stream of cosmogenic nuclides in the atmosphere that will fall to the ground. By measuring the build-up of these nuclides on terrestrial surfaces, the length of time for which the surface has been exposed can be inferred. This technique can be used to date objects over millions of years old.
Erosion
Many places on Earth show evidence of erosion taking place over very long time periods. The Grand Canyon, for instance, would have taken millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water. Nevertheless, Young Earthers insist it was cut in a few years following the Great Flood - but in order for this to happen the rocks of the Kaibab Plateau would have needed to have the solubility of granulated sugar, rather than the more solid stone that it's made of.
In the case of the Yakima River in Washington State between Ellensburg and Yakima, the river meanders with many oxbows typical of a slow-moving river on a plain, yet it is set within a deep canyon with visible layers of erosion. The only possible explanation is that the pre-existing river maintained its original bed as slow tectonic forces caused the surrounding land to rise underneath and around it.
Geomagnetic reversals
A geomagnetic reversal is a change in the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field. The frequency at which these reversals occur varies greatly, but they usually happen once every 50,000 to 800,000 years, and generally take thousands of years. This fact is obviously inconsistent with the notion of a young Earth; around 171 reversals are geologically documented, which would make the Earth at least 8.5 million years old.
(If the earth was only 10,000 years old, that would mean a magnetic reversal would have occurred every 58.5 years on average.)
Iron-manganese nodule growth
Beryllium-10 (10Be) produced by cosmic rays shows that iron-manganese nodule growth is one of the slowest geological phenomena. It takes several million years to form one centimeter (and some are the size of potatoes). Cosmic ray produced 10Be is produced by the interactions of protons and neutrons with nitrogen and oxygen. It then reaches the earth via snow or rain. Since it is reactive, it gets absorbed by detritus material, within a timespan of about 300 years- very short compared to its half-life. Thusly, 10Be is excellent for use in dating marine sediment.
Coral
Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and grow upon the residues of their calcareous remains. These corals and residues gradually become structures known as coral reefs. This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger reefs have been "growing" for hundreds of thousands of years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years, and that coral reef structures have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for at least 600,000 years.
Fission track dating
Fission track dating is a radiometric dating technique that can be used to determine the age of crystalline materials that contain uranium. As uranium decays, it sends out atomic fragments, which leave scars or "fission tracks" in crystalline structures. Because decaying uranium emits fragments at a constant rate, the number of fission tracks correlates to the age of the object. This method is generally held to be accurate, as it shows a high degree of concordance with other methods such as potassium-argon dating.
Ice layering
Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.
Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.
Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.
Lack of DNA in fossils
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the universal carrier of genetic information, is present in all organisms while they are alive. When they die, their DNA begins to decay under the influence of hydrolysis and oxidation. The speed of this decay varies on a number of factors. Sometimes, the DNA will be gone within one century, and in other conditions, it will persist for as many as one million years. The average amount of time detectable DNA will persist though is somewhere in the middle; given physiological salt concentrations, neutral pH, and a temperature of 15 °C, it would take around 100,000 years for all the DNA in a sample to decay to undetectable levels.
Permafrost
The formation of permafrost (frozen ground) is a slow process. To be consistent with the young earth creationist model, which states that all sediment was deposited by the global flood, there would have to be absolutely no permafrost present at the end of the flood, because any permafrost that was present at the moment of creation would have been melted during the flood.
Because earth is a good insulator and permafrost forms downward from the surface, it would have taken much more than the few thousand years allotted by creation theory to produce some of the deepest permafrost. In the Prudhoe Bay oil fields of Alaska, the permafrost which extends over 600 meters into the ground is believed to have taken over 225,000 years to reach present depth.
Weathering rinds
Weathering rinds are layers of weathered material that develop on glacial rocks. The weathering is caused by the oxidation of magnesium and iron rich minerals, and the thickness of this layer correlates with the age of a sample. Certain weathering rinds on basalt and andesite rocks in the eastern United States are believed to have taken over 300,000 years to form.
Dendrochronology
Dendrochronology is a method of scientific dating which is based on annual tree growth patterns called tree rings. The rings are the result of changes in the tree's growth speed over the year (since trees grow faster in the summer and slower in the winter). The age of a tree can be found by counting the rings and is the only method on this list that can date events precisely to a single year.
Now, any date derived from one individual tree is not in itself contradictory to the recent creation doctrine, since even the longest lived types of tree do not live longer than 5,000 years or so. However, it is possible to extend the chronology back over many different trees. This is done by taking the matching up living tree rings with dead tree rings, which go on longer than the living rings. Because the thickness of tree rings varies with the climate, a sequence of thick ring, thin ring, thin ring, thick ring, thick ring, thick ring, thin ring, thick ring is strong evidence that the corresponding rings formed at the same time. By observing and analyzing the rings of many different trees from the same area, including fossil trees, the tree ring chronology has been pushed back in some areas as far as 11,000 years.
Human Y-chromosomal ancestry
The Y-chromosome, unlike most DNA, is inherited only from the father, which means that all DNA on the human Y chromosome comes from a single person. This does not mean that there was only one person alive at that time, but that a single man's Y-chromosomal DNA has out-competed the other strains and is now - not taking into account smaller and less drastic mutations - the only one left. Because the only factor affecting the makeup of the DNA on the chromosome is mutation, measuring mutation rates and extrapolating them backwards can tell you when this man lived. The most recent calculations put this common ancestor as having lived 340,000 years ago.
Oxidizable carbon ratio dating
Oxidizable carbon ratio dating is a method for determining the absolute age of charcoal samples with relative accuracy. This dating method works by measuring the ratio of oxidizable carbon to organic carbon. When the sample is freshly burned, there will be no oxidizable carbon because it has been removed by the combustion process. Over time this will change and the amount of organic carbon will decrease to be replaced by oxidizable carbon at a linear rate. By measuring the ratio of these two allotropes, one can determine ages of over 20,000 years ago with a standard error under 3%.
Rock varnish
Rock varnish is a coating that will form on exposed surface rocks. The varnish is formed as airborne dust accumulates on rock surfaces. This process is extremely slow; between 4 µm and 40 µm of material forms on the rock every thousand years, and instances of 40 µm of accumulation are very rare. Because the rate of accumulation is generally constant, measuring the depth of the varnish can provide dates for objects up to 250,000 years old.
Thermoluminescence dating
Thermoluminescence dating is a method for determining the age of objects containing crystalline minerals, such as ceramics or lava. These materials contain electrons that have been released from their atoms by ambient radiation, but have become trapped by imperfections in the mineral's structure. When one of these minerals is heated, the trapped electrons are discharged and produce light, and that light can be measured and compared with the level of surrounding radiation to establish the amount of time that has passed since the material was last heated (and its trapped electrons were last released).
Although this technique can date objects up to approximately 230,000 years ago, is only accurate on objects up to 10,000 years in age. This is, however, still over 4,000 years older than the creationist figure for the age of the earth.
----------------------------
Paraphrased from here
Where did you answer these exactly:
-Do insertion mutations exist?
-Do beneficial mutations exist?
-Can you explain how: "adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things"?
-Can you give a source for Mexicans having a weaker jaw?
In part we are.
Efforts to improve conditions (ref) and make contraceptives more available, etc.
Couldn't the commercial interests you are listening to be the ones doing the misleading?
Increased Efficiency will keep CO2 levels down but that will be taxation from the government.
It doesn't require taxation if people just put greater emphasis on efficiency themselves.
Even if we need to use government taxation to capture the costs of externalities, so what - that is a valid function of government. Does the invisible hand of the free market capture the demands of future generations? No? Then we need a different way to account for those demands.
government can't control the environment
So, we can't do exactly like we did with acid rain under H.W. Bush (ref)? Or, what we did with CFCs under Reagan (ref)?
to bad you don't understand that !
"to" bad, indeed.
What you are doing is trying to justify your life.
Or, is religion the way you try to justify your life? Did you ever ask yourself if God gave Neanderthals a purpose?
Wisdom teeth will give your jaw a little extra strength
Based on what?
About 100% of Mexicans don't get wisdom teeth - do they have naturally weaker jaws - or, are they one of the most prolific countries for boxing champions in the world?
What's your next stupid question?
Why move on to the next question before you answer any of the previous ones?
You think you have the right to exist outside of Hell
You keep trying to tell everyone their motivation - apparently not realizing that it is not much of an argument and that it is just as easily pointed back at you.
e.g. you only believe what you believe in hopes of going to a heaven - not based on evidence.
If you don't think they are vestigial, then tell us what the purpose would be of a second centromere and extra telomeres would be on a chromosome.
And, why they just so happen to line up where one would expect during the process of a chromosomal fusion.
While you're at it, explain the benefits of wisdom teeth - perhaps they are where you get your wisdom...
Are you? Then I guess you haven't tried the capture experiment...
Are Democrats saying that CO2 levels are at 50,000 parts per million (the level where you suffocate), or just over 400ppm?
Which democrats have said that increased CO2 or global warming stops photosynthesis?
No evidence or any line of rational thought can explain how a single human underwent a genetic chromosomal fusion and passed that alteration to all of mankind
As I already pointed out, there is evidence of the fusion:
- Vestigial centromere.
Chromosomes generally have one centromere - human chromosome 2 has two.
- Vestigial telomeres.
Telomeres are, by definition, generally found at the ends of chromosomes, but human chromosome 2 has telomeres in the middle.
-The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes.
Here is a comparison showing the number and banding between human and chimpanzee chromosomes for people to judge for themselves.
It would not be intelligent to create people with 48 chromosones, it would be stupid because they would be apes and not people.
In your previous post, you say "It takes a lot more than a number 2 fusion to get a human from an ape" and here you seem to say that all it takes is chromosome count - you should probably pick one.
As I've already mentioned - not all people have 46 chromosomes. I'll add, not all monkeys have 48. Some have less than 30 and some have more than 60 ref
You should also take a look at the Muntiacus muntjac - the male has 7 chromosomes and the female has 6 - while a different species, the Reeve's muntjac, has 46.
Yes. Because it is far simpler to make up falsehoods than to disprove them.
And the current media has little room for longer discussions.
The shorter the discussion - facebook, twitter, bumper-stickers, etc. - the more idiots believe they are right.
A problem with the hypothesis of a chromosomal fusion in human ancestry lies in the complete absence of humans with 48 chromosomes.
Uh - no. not since the fusion happened before the emergence of the species homo sapien.
Also, lots of people have 47 (Down syndrome) and we've found a healthy person with 44 ref
The first explanation is that an intelligent designer created humans with 48 chromosomes
The old - whatever happened, God did it - idea.
It explains how something you (actually the site you copied it from) said couldn't happen definitely could have happened and gives the evidence that supports that it did happen. It was you who made incorrect assumptions.
Since you avoided the question - show how "adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things" - I'll assume that you figured out that you were wrong.
Haldane’s dilemma
1. Haldane's "cost of natural selection" stemmed from an invalid simplifying assumption in his calculations. He divided by a fitness constant in a way that invalidated his assumption of constant population size, and his cost of selection is an artifact of the changed population size. He also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, but because of sexual recombination, the two can be selected simultaneously and both reach fixation sooner. With corrected calculations, the cost disappears (Wallace 1991; Williams n.d.).
Haldane's paper was published in 1957, and Haldane himself said, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision" (Haldane 1957, 523). It is irresponsible not to consider the revision that has occurred in the forty years since his paper was published.
2. ReMine (1993), who promotes the claim, makes several invalid assumptions. His model is contradicted by the following:
• The vast majority of differences would probably be due to genetic drift, not selection.
• Many genes would have been linked with genes that are selected and thus would have hitchhiked with them to fixation.
• Many mutations, such as those due to unequal crossing over, affect more than one codon.
• Human and ape genes both would be diverging from the common ancestor, doubling the difference.
• ReMine's computer simulation supposedly showing the negative influence of Haldane's dilemma assumed a population size of only six (Musgrave 1999).
evolution is good for nothing
Whether it is good for something or not doesn't determine whether it is true.
I want you to get off my back and leave me alone, I don't want to talk to you any more, all you are doing is harassing me.
If you find debate/disagreement harassing then this might not be the right place for you.
Who cares if there is convincing evidence for god?
I thought you did...
Copying the same argument will get the same response:
"Dawkins pulls a bait-and-switch and defines information as "Shannon information"—a formulation of "information" that applies to signal transmission and does not account for the type of specified complexity found in biology."
This is duplicitous as they go on to describe Shannon information as measuring only the information capacity whereas Dawkins actually touches on 3 things aspects of information - total information capacity, the information actually used, and the non-redundant information used - the latter largely maps up to the ID definition for specified complexity.
It is important to note ID proponents did not invent the notion of "specified complexity,"
They didn't invent the phrase, but they did invent the meaning for it that they now use.
you have to cling to belief that mutation causes things like reptiles to morph into birds
And you seem to believe that mutations can't add anything to the genome and are somehow limited by something that you haven't yet described.
If evolution (and radiometric dating and the geologic column) were unreliable, then scientists should not be able to determine a period of time when one animal transitioned into another animal, then look for fossils in relevant strata and find transitional fossils.
However, scientists did date fish fossils and tetrapod fossils, set out to look in a part of the geologic column between those dates and found a transitional fossil - Tiktaalik.
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
This is evidence for evolution (and radiometric dating and the geologic column).
This is exactly why I say that basically all fossils are transitional fossils. Fish didn't give birth to lizards. Their children were slightly different, and different environments favored or disfavored some of those differences, repeat.
Human attempts at general classification have issues dealing with this pattern, but that doesn't make it untrue.
It's no different from the bacteria it came from any more than dogs are different from wolves.
If differences in body shape/size, fur/skin color, hearing, sight, sense of smell, intelligence, temperament, dentition, etc., etc. are all allowed, then:
Is the Coelacanth different from Eusthenopteron any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Is the Eusthenopteron different from Panderichthys any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Is the Panderichthys different from Tiktaalik any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Is the Tiktaalik different from Acanthostega any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Is the Acanthostega different from Ichthyostega any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Is the Ichthyostega different from Tulerpeton any more than dogs are different from wolves?
Changing the expression of information is not adding information
Does adding nucleotides to the DNA strand add information? Is improved functionality in a given environment added information?
the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground
How does that dispute what I said: "P.S. the bible says people came from dust."
Why do you believe in evolution?
Because there is convincing evidence for it. There is not convincing evidence for god.
Are you saying "increase in information" equals evolution?
As I have told you many times:
Evolution = mutation + heritability + selection
Some of those mutations are insertion mutations which add nucleotides to the DNA.
Are you going to dodge the question?
It is you who has repeatedly dodged the questions:
Do insertion mutations exist?
Do beneficial mutations exist?
Explain how:"adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things"
then it is likely that they are a product of a separate evolution
Is "separate evolution" evidence against evolution?
Eggs on day 5, Milk on day 6
Where does Genesis mention milk and eggs again?
Reptiles lay eggs. Seems to still line up with Genesis
Land reptiles preceding birds does not line up with Genesis at all.
creatures that give birth by egg were day 5
Are whales sea creatures? were they created on day 5? do they lay eggs?
creatures who incubate their eggs in their bodies and deliver full developed young and then nurture by milk are a creature found on day 6.
Do you think no land animals lay eggs? how about lizards, spiders, etc.? did dinosaurs lay eggs? do even some mammals like the platypus lay eggs? Are chickens, ostriches, penguins, etc. birds that "fly above the earth" (day 5), or "creatures that move along the ground" (day 6)? do they lay eggs?
Dogs did not evolve from wolves, they were selectively bred from wolves.
Whether the selection is done by the natural environment or by people (part of the environment), it is still a selection done among heritable mutations.
Did amoeba evolve from rocks?
Evolution says that from the lesser can come the greater.
P.S. the bible says people came from dust.
You are implying "increase in information" equals evolution.
I am saying that you are incorrect in claiming information does not increase.
The bacteria in the subject video of this debate are the same bacteria they started out as
No, it is not "the same" - it has different DNA and different functionality.
Your whole equation cannot be shown in nature
What part of mutation, heritability, or selection do you need more evidence for?
What is the survival mechanism limited by?
You said: The bacteria in the subject video adapted. There was something in their genes which allowed for this as a survival mechanism which is limited.
The "something" here is mutation, heritability, and selection. - what are those limited by?
you imply adaptations are beneficial mutations when it is programmed survival mechanisms in the organism
An "adaptation" is a heritable mutation that is favored in a given environment.
your conclusions of mutations equaling evolution
Evolution = mutation + heritability + selection
There was something in their genes which allowed for this as a survival mechanism which is limited
limited by what?
I assumed the ability to click a link and read - perhaps I overestimated.
"Evolution has been caught in the act, according to scientists who are decoding how a species of Australian lizard is abandoning egg-laying in favor of live birth.
Along the warm coastal lowlands of New South Wales (map), the yellow-bellied three-toed skink lays eggs to reproduce. But individuals of the same species living in the state's higher, colder mountains are almost all giving birth to live young.
Only two other modern reptiles—another skink species and a European lizard—use both types of reproduction.
Evolutionary records shows that nearly a hundred reptile lineages have independently made the transition from egg-laying to live birth in the past, and today about 20 percent of all living snakes and lizards give birth to live young only.
But modern reptiles that have live young provide only a single snapshot on a long evolutionary time line, said study co-author James Stewart, a biologist at East Tennessee State University. The dual behavior of the yellow-bellied three-toed skink therefore offers scientists a rare opportunity.
"By studying differences among populations that are in different stages of this process, you can begin to put together what looks like the transition from one [birth style] to the other."
Eggs-to-Baby Switch Creates Nutrient Problem
One of the mysteries of how reptiles switch from eggs to live babies is how the young get their nourishment before birth.
In mammals a highly specialized placenta connects the fetus to the uterus wall, allowing the baby to take up oxygen and nutrients from the mother's blood and pass back waste. (See related pictures of "extreme" animals in the womb.)
In egg-laying species, the embryo gets nourishment from the yolk, but calcium absorbed from the porous shell is also an important nutrient source.
Some fish and reptiles, meanwhile, use a mix of both birthing styles. The mother forms eggs, but then retains them inside her body until the very last stages of embryonic development.
The shells of these eggs thin dramatically so that the embryos can breathe, until live babies are born covered with only thin membranes—all that remains of the shells.
This adaptation presents a potential nourishment problem: A thinner shell has less calcium, which could cause deficiencies for the young reptiles.
Stewart and colleagues, who have studied skinks for years, decided to look for clues to the nutrient problem in the structure and chemistry of the yellow-bellied three-toed skink's uterus.
"Now we can see that the uterus secretes calcium that becomes incorporated into the embryo—it's basically the early stages of the evolution of a placenta in reptiles," Stewart explained.
Evolutionary Transition Surprisingly Simple
Both birthing styles come with evolutionary tradeoffs: Eggs are more vulnerable to external threats, such as extreme weather and predators, but internal fetuses can be more taxing for the mother.
For the skinks, moms in balmier climates may opt to conserve their own bodies' resources by depositing eggs on the ground for the final week or so of development. Moms in harsh mountain climates, by contrast, might find that it's more efficient to protect their young by keeping them longer inside their bodies.
In general, the results suggest the move from egg-laying to live birth in reptiles is fairly common—at least in historic terms—because it's relatively easy to make the switch, Stewart said.
"We tend to think of this as a very complex transition," he said, "but it's looking like it might be much simpler in some cases than we thought."
The skink-evolution research was published online August 16 by the Journal of Morphology."
Land Reptiles before birds and mammals.
So, land animals before birds.
Leviticus deals with clean vs unclean - not order of creation.
The link describes current examples of animals in transition. Eggs certainly came first.
Egg layers
Then amniotes
then viviparity (live birth)
That is what they think because they havn't found birds.
Not only because they haven't found birds earlier in the fossil record, but also because they have found evidence for the transition from dinosaurs to birds.
It is not as conclusive as you think.
It is not as inconclusive as you think...
Since you obviously don't plan to answer - the bible says sea animals and birds were created on day 5 and that land animals were created on day 6.
Evolution says:
1) land animals preceded birds
2) land animals evolved from sea animals (and marine mammals are sea animals that later evolved from land animals).
The biblical account and the evolution account cannot both be true - there is evidence for the evolution account (for example, the chain of pairs I previously provided.)
I had read that before giving you Dawkins' response and thought it was so poor (and agrees to things that you do not) that you would not use it, but here ya go.
"Dawkins pulls a bait-and-switch and defines information as "Shannon information"—a formulation of "information" that applies to signal transmission and does not account for the type of specified complexity found in biology."
This is duplicitous as they go on to describe Shannon information as measuring only the information capacity whereas Dawkins actually touches on 3 things aspects of information - total information capacity, the information actually used, and the non-redundant information used - the latter largely maps up to the ID definition for specified complexity.
"during the actual gene-duplication process, a pre-existing gene is merely copied, and nothing truly new is generated."
Duplicitous again as it ignores Dawkins' actual argument - that the process of duplication (along with the mutations that occur during the process) can increase the information capacity, but that it is natural selection that adds the non-redundant information to the gene pool.
Both of the above are proved duplicitous later on when they admit:
"Dawkins would argue that the information in the environment is transferred into the genome of the organism. Fair enough."
and "We all know that mutations must provide the raw fuel upon which natural selection can act."
At the end of the day, even the ID supporters are forced to admit:
"I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent." - Behe
and "Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution" - Gilbert, Opitz, Raff
and "Natural selection can (given the right population circumstances, etc.) preserve traits that confer a survival advantage, and it is very effective at weeding out traits that are disadvantageous." - Luski (the response author)
So, they believe in beneficial mutations, common descent, and microevolution, and, as Dawkins points out, they believe that information is added, they just believe an intelligent designer adds it rather than mutation and natural selection.
Do you also believe the evidence strongly supports common descent, microevolution, and beneficial mutations?
Also, I've given examples of observed increases in functionality and the creation of new genes - no matter which definition you use, these would be an increase in information.
Maybe you should try to think for yourself rather than copying/pasting the arguments used against you.
We can't get past the basics, because you don't admit they are true.
Do you now admit insertion mutations exist?
Do you now admit beneficial mutations exist?
Anything you can show me in observable science is not in dispute.
As long as you're saying things like: "adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things", then, yes, there is still dispute.
nothing past bio 101
If you can't get past the bio 101 topics, it would be useless to discuss things that depend on you understanding them.
the basic stuff you harp on
I harp on the basics because your arguments still don't agree with them.
I have studied it more than you
Then, here's your chance professor - show us all how wise you are by making sense of your claim:
"adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things"
I don't think your questions are worth me looking up
So, other people are supposed to "investigate instead of shutting down", but not you?
Are you the one "stepping back and taking in all the info" - if someone asks you to take a look at info and you say it isn't worth it?
I don't limit things in one direction
You just decide that the other directions aren't worthwhile.
I raise my view to take more in
until challenged.
I'm not a biologist
You seemed sure enough to pronounce that a wolf is a kind of dog without being a biologist.
If wolves and dogs are related by mutation, then mutation can change: body shape/size, fur color, hearing, sight, sense of smell, intelligence, temperament, dentition, etc., etc.
Don't the pairs I mention fall within the same level of mutation or less?
Maybe if you looked at scripture with your science mind
you wouldn't even consider the possibility just because it doesn't fit in your box
So instead why don't you take what you know and investigate
This is exactly what I'm asking you to do. If you have a broad view of science and the bible, then investigate and impart your wisdom by answering the questions.
again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
Why?
Um, why not??
I actually don't dispute principles of evolution.
good - then answering should be no problem for you.
again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
But what about everything else?
We can get to everything else right after you answer the initial questions.
again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
If it doesn't prove you wrong, then you have no reason not to answer, right?
again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
three Stone structures
Presumably you mean this or some other silliness.
Nice dodge - again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
I answered it, you don't like the answer.
You specifically did not.
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
Answer the questions and then I will elucidate.
again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
