JustIgnoreMe's Waterfall
And I assert that if you answer the question, you will see how evolution does contradict the bible and you apparently know this which is why you can't answer the question.
again - what I asked:
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?
So, does that mean you can answer the question?
again - what I asked:
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?
again - what I asked:
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?
You, of course, dismiss the entire thing without disputing one single thing in it.
The only one just asserting their case and ignoring the arguments against is you.
I have taken college biology recently
Then you should try to get your money back. Bring copies of your posts on this site and they can't refuse.
old enough to be your grandfather
Old enough to be my grandfather (I'm in my 40's) and you're just getting around to taking biology, eh?
Aside from your irrelevant gibberish, do you have any response to the actual claims?
Do you admit insertion mutations exist?
Do you admit beneficial mutations exist?
again - what I asked:
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?
First 6 paragraphs - gibberish.
a wolf is a kind of dog
If you believe wolves and dogs are related, then you believe mutations can change - body shape/size, fur color, hearing, sight, sense of smell, intelligence, temperament, dentition, etc., etc.
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 same kind as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same kind as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same kind as Tulerpeton?
You should study DNA scientifically
You should start with the very basics.
http://www.yourgenome.org/facts/
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/
adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things
no, they aren't.
Explain how you think they are different.
You are twisting words and stretching definitions
The reason you think this is that you obviously don't know the definitions.
Is that clearer?
um, no.
A) Define kind.
B) Do you believe dogs could have evolved from wolves, or not?
Do viruses evolve to pets, or does it further propel man into their never ending decay?
Yes, from the simple came the more complex. And yes, we can observe beneficial mutations.
The fallen angels brought crafts and skills of Heavens and taught their ways to men.
fan fiction.
God washed the earth of their seed in a flood
fiction
after it's kind does seeds make
Define kind. Did dogs evolve from wolves?
the site you reference is completely against your implication that mutations cause evolution so that reptiles morph into birds
Did I say - here is a site that completely agrees with every claim that I make - or, did I say here is a site (run by creationists) that disagrees with a claim that you make?
A few quotes from your waterfall:
------------------------------
New DNA is never seen to be added to the genome of any creature which would be required for evolution to occur. ref
Mutations NEVER add DNA ref
Mutations NEVER add DNA to the genome of an organism, DNA is lost or damaged in mutations. ref
Mutations are always detrimental to the organism. ref
Variations and mutations are obvious and cannot be argued against. It is not evolution, it is not new DNA being added to the genome. ref
The only thing I deny is that DNA is added to the genome by mutation. A mutation or a variation is not new DNA added to the genome of the creature. The genome allows for variations, and mutations are always from defects in the DNA. Neither of these things adds new DNA to the genome causing one animal to turn into a different kind of animal as would be required for evolution to occur. It never has been observed and never will be observed because it never happened and never will happen. ref
changing genes is a variation or a mutation, it's not evolution. It does not add DNA to the genome of the animal. ref
The question was "Can you show me one example mutation or any process of evolution adding DNA to the genome of any creature". You cannot. ref
Mutation does not add new information to the genome of any creature. ref
you argue that mutation adds DNA to the genome when it has never been seen to happen ref
------------------------------
1) As I have shown, even some ardent creationists agree that we have observed processes which add DNA.
2) An increase (or decrease or change) in the DNA is BY DEFINITION a mutation.
Therefore, there are mutations which add DNA
No, the people of that site agree that there are mutations, there are beneficial mutations, and there are mutations that increase the size of the genome. They still probabilistic claims on the number of beneficial mutations, and discuss how temporary they might be, etc. etc. (unconvincingly I might add), but they definitely disagree with your claim that DNA never grows - since they have observed the opposite.
Just take one of the above and show that either they don't happen, or that they don't increase the size.
Should be easy for you, right?
Here ya go:
- duplication (may or may not duplicate a full gene sequence)
- asymmetrical chiasma
- Trinucleotide repeats
- polymerase-catalyzed extensions (slippage)
- nucleotide and amino acid insertion
- frameshift mutations
- virus insertional mutagenesis
- polyploidy
variations which are potential in the genome are not new DNA
There are three types of mutation:
substitution mutations - replacing nucleotides with other nucleotides - size remains the same
deletion mutations - removal of nucleotides - size decreases
and INSERTION mutations - addition of nucleotides - size increases
I believe he addresses the information from both the available combinations and the length.
I am assuming you mean that the length of the DNA sequence for a given species increases.
Yes, the number of bases in the DNA sequence can increase.
You: "Mutations NEVER add DNA to the genome "
Me: Here are several ways in which exactly that happens and creationist concurrence in that fact...
You: "you are so brainwashed"
Um.
It says:
"The first step of this rearrangement was insertion"
and
"those duplicated genes"
Dawkins' response to the video you mention:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/resources/
You have not.
I definitely have.
Copying in (again) from my post from 2 years ago:
"There are lots of ways information is added to the genome:
- duplication (may or may not duplicate a full gene sequence)
- asymmetrical chiasma
- Trinucleotide repeats
- polymerase-catalyzed extensions (slippage)
- nucleotide and amino acid insertion
- frameshift mutations
- virus insertional mutagenesis
- polyploidy"
And from answersingenesis - a creation site:
"Another mutation of E. coli facilitated amino acid catabolism under starvation conditions, enabling the mutant to outcompete the parental wild-type.53 This increased catabolism resulted from a genomic rearrangement (Figure 3). The first step of this rearrangement was insertion of an indigenous IS5 element between the promoter and a CRP-binding site (catabolite regulatory protein) of the starvationinducible cstA gene.54"
"Hence, certain environmental conditions seem to favor bacteria with specific genes duplicated. This may have provided the organism a temporary increase in gene expression of those duplicated genes, which apparently helped the organism cope with the higher temperature."
Notice that both of the (beneficial) mutations they are describing resulted in increased genome size.
Until they kill themselves from too many concussions - wait, you mean those dolphins... ;)
Mutations NEVER add DNA to the genome of an organism
I have shown this to be wrong several times - ref
Until tomorrow when they find another.
Until they find another what? A fossil of a bird that came before all land animals - that is what we want you to show us - that would be evidence against our current belief in evolution, but there isn't - and that is evidence that evolution is correct.
I believe 5 and 6 are 24 hour Days.
Which is what I believed you to be saying earlier - that 6,000 years is from the time of the creation of the sun. While I find that tragically lacking in intelligence, I still offered its refutation - the bible says the stars were created after the sun - and distant starlight shows the stars to be > billions of years old.
Now just on the 1st page of the biblical text, when using basic reading skills and logical inferences, the biblical faitj accont of creation does not necessarily contradict evolution theory.
Biblical creation says birds came before land animals, the fossil record says otherwise.
Biblical creation also says that land, sea, and air kinds are distinct rather than some sea kinds evolved to land animals, and some of those land animals evolved into birds (and some of those land animals evolved into sea animals - the marine mammals).
I'm suggesting the earth may possibly be the oldest, and it sat alone black in space.
Do you think fruit trees (created on day 3) grew in darkness?
Do you think the earth stayed warm enough for liquid water with no sun?
Do you think there is night and day (created on day 1) without an earth rotating and orbiting the sun?
blaming Him (if He exists) on the growth of seed of sin, disease and troubles.
They are using those things as evidence that a god worthy of worship does not exist.
God created man to live eternity
Nope. The reason Adam and Eve were supposedly kicked out of the Garden of Eden was because the garden contained another tree (the tree of life) which would allow them to live forever - meaning they weren't going to live forever initially.
And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
-Genesis 3:22
non-vascular plants without photosynthesis synthesis
non-vascular does not refer to plants that do not use photosynthesis, it refers to the way they uptake water.
Day 3 also refers to fruit trees - do you think fruit trees are non-vascular plants??
known mutations we can observe are disease related
We also observe beneficial mutations.
From AnswersInGenesis:
"Another mutation of E. coli facilitated amino acid catabolism under starvation conditions, enabling the mutant to outcompete the parental wild-type. This increased catabolism resulted from a genomic rearrangement (Figure 3). The first step of this rearrangement was insertion of an indigenous IS5 element between the promoter and a CRP-binding site (catabolite regulatory protein) of the starvation inducible cstA gene."
and:
"Hence, certain environmental conditions seem to favor bacteria with specific genes duplicated. This may have provided the organism a temporary increase in gene expression of those duplicated genes, which apparently helped the organism cope with the higher temperature."
See also:
Does cancer mutate? And germs, bacteria, and viruses, do they mutate?
Yes and yes (bacteria and viruses are types of germs). All replicating DNA mutates over time.
the 6000th year
The 6,000th year since what? The creation of the sun? As I said ealier, the stars were created in genesis just AFTER the sun, and light from distant stars has travelled billions of years to reach earth.
Yes - that is exactly what the evidence shows.
Your appeal to emotion/incredulity notwithstanding.
Wait - how do you explain these quotes from YOU?
"There are signs that mutation were likely, and there is evidence of old earth, that I accepted in my review of evidence." - ref
"So while mutations may have occured, I actually don't doubt they did occur" - ref
"Day 3 Growth of plant and bugs, and lower forms of cell mutations" - ref
etc.
Um, of course...
I didn't realize that you don't even think mutations occur - I guess we have our work cut out for us...
Do you think the appearance of birds actually predates the appearance of land animals??
And you don't see any problem having an earth with an atmosphere, water, trees, plants, fruit, and night and day before THE SUN existed??
The determiner of whether a mutation is beneficial is whether the species is better adapted to the coeval environment.
The trick here is with an ambiguity in the definition of the word fossil.
A fossil is generally defined as being in the distant past, of a previous geological age, prehistoric, or older than 10,000 years, etc. - (it came from a Latin word meaning dig up.), but is also used at times to describe anything that has been petrified.
There are several ways that remains are preserved through time (petrified) with varying amounts of time required.
Calcification - like that found in the "stone baby" (lithopedion) happens in a relatively short period of time -
for instance "most adults greater than 60 years old have calcium deposits in their blood vessels" (ref) - see also: ear petrification (ref)
What are the laws of evolution?
Not exactly laws, but maybe this will be clarifying
Evolution (to any extent) = mutation + heredity + selection
Have we seen organism mutate into other species?
Perhaps you are looking for an example like this
who would you rather have move in next door to you tomorrow? A black family; a brown family; or an Asian family?
Hot curious lesbians of whichever lineage...
and [Asians] are usually Republicans
Incorrect. In 1998, they were roughly equally divided - since then, they tend to vote for Democrats. ref
You may make a lot of posts, but you don't make a lot of opposition...
There's a difference.
The Red Herring is where ?
Just frustrated for the same reason Luke Wilson was frustrated in Idiocracy...
if her life is not in danger, then there's no need to apply the "self-defense" clause.
Does your right to self-defense only apply to save your life? If someone was going to anally rape you, should it be illegal for you to shoot them to prevent it?
if I died, before you read this, would I still not be expressing an opinion?
Exactly - you would NOT be expressing an opinion. The indications of your former opinion - this website - could continue to influence others.
Consider that instead of dying we're put in isolation from which no information can enter or leave. does that mean that a person's opinion ceases to exist then?
How does this respond to Jace's comment that in order to have an opinion, they need to be alive:
They are alive and can have an opinion.
Despite it being functionally Identicle to death
Not at all.
I think people should avoid the whole - 'it's not human' argument altogether... abortion falls within the woman's right to self-defense to protect herself from the harms of pregnancy. In Florida, you can legally kill a full grown person who breaks into your house to steal your tv - impacting you only financially. A pregnancy impacts a woman in many ways - financially, hormonally/mentally, socially, and, of course, physically - some of the impacts will be permanent. That a person would have the self-defense right to prevent loss of tv, but not the pains of bringing a pregnancy to term is completely illogical and hypocritical.
No, a person doesn't have opinions when they are dead - even if the indications of their (former) opinion continue to influence others after they die.
(Unless you mean they still have opinions in fairyland - which is a whole different ball of wax.)
You will either ban me (or keep avoiding by some other means) and continue to show the weakness of your argument, or answer the question and continue to debate...
Your unwillingness/inability to answer the question is noted (again).
If you're not able to answer the question using your reasoning, might your reasoning be deficient??
Do women have a Constitutional right to shoot someone who is about to rape them?
Abortion falls within a woman's right to defend herself from harms - self-defense.
Does that right exist?
Does a fully grown person who breaks into your house to rape you have the right to live??
Aaaawwwww - he has a stutter - now all the progressive will feel bad for you...
Progressives support research into getting you some memory medication.
And some help so you can afford it...
Really racking up those points though - good for you!!
If you can't win an argument at least you can get your participation trophy...
When he runs out of cut/paste arguments that have already been defeated, will he start to think for himself??
(rhetorical question...)
Context already provided - along with:
"Discrimination is a world-wide thing. It has to be opposed everywhere. That is why I feel the Negro’s plight here is linked with that of the oppressed around the globe.
The big answer, as I see it, is the education of the white man. The white man is the problem. It is the same as with the Nazis. We must change the white attitudes. That is where it lies."
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
already addressed:
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
do you ever tire of being so wrong?
Already addressed here
I guess this helps illustrate the difference between you and I - when you say she thinks blacks are like human weeds, I search, find that is a oft-used, but unattributed and wrong assertion, and tell you it is wrong. If it were me, I would the either find the source or stop saying such a thing - you, on the other hand, feel no compunction whatsoever about just repeating blindly anything that you think supports you - even if it is a known falsehood.
Your posts only serve to strengthen the argument against you...
All the time - are you "SPECIAL"?
A) Just because someone breaks one law does not mean they break all laws - if someone steals does that mean they would also kill? if someone runs a red light does that mean they would also rape? Silly.
B) Lots of people don't break laws BECAUSE there are laws and they would rather not suffer the penalty of breaking those laws.
If you believe otherwise, you are free to present any substantiation. Otherwise, I'll leave it to other readers to judge the evidence for themselves.
To complete the circle - see earlier post:
Which is exactly the sum total of refutation you can offer...
0
Why do people like Thomas Jefferson?
You either think that lots of posts means lots of points and points make you a winner... Or, you're just dumber than a box of rocks.
If you agree with Sanger on the taxes of the rich going to the poor, would that mean YOU endorse everything she said?
Women had to fight for the right to (party?) use birth control - Sanger was one of the most prominent women in that fight.
Successive women look back appreciatively at the achievement of those women even if they don't think those women were perfect.
Yes. Laws work. That some crime still happens is not evidence that they do not prevent some crime.
Show me the place without laws that has no murders, theft, etc.
Again - already addressed:
" “I admire Thomas Jefferson, his words and his leadership — and I deplore his un-repentant slave holding. I admire Margaret Sanger being a pioneer and trying to empower women to have some control over their bodies — and I deplore the statements you have referenced. That is the way we often are when we look at flawed human beings. There are things we admire, and things that we deplore.” " - Hillary Clinton
So soon you forget your defeats....
Sane people evaluate to some extent what the consequence of their actions might be before they do them - if those consequences include prison rape, they are often dissuaded.
The law also gives enforcement personnel the authority to stop crimes that are in progress.
Putting repeat offenders in jail prevents their future offences - we use laws to put them in jail
etc. etc.
Why have any laws - dumb da dumb dumb...
That some people break the law is not evidence that laws do not work at all.
Where do you get your IGNORANCE from?
I suppose a short memory of being proved wrong is a prerequisite for maintaining your ideology.
I've already school you on that subject here
(Though I do have another post that I've been meaning to make there - so, thanks for reminding me.)
Can you name any 2016 Democratic Party presidential candidate who is part of the KKK?
Because I can name (already have named) several 2016 Republican Party presidential candidates opposed to exceptions...
Already gave you links here, rather than refute, you again chose to ban...
Again - the question here is more broad - any response for the ACTUAL question?
Many Republicans are against life of the mother exceptions and the Republican Party platform does not allow any exceptions (as I've told you repeatedly)
But, the question here is more broad than that - do you have the right of self-defense to protect more than just your life? For example: if someone was about to rape you or your wife, etc. should you be legally allowed to shoot them?
Out of curiosity, why do you oppose a ban on high capacity magazines?
again - abortion is done in self-defense.
Yes, self-defense is selfish...
or it is like vehicle registration and insurance requirements.
or laws against drinking and driving
laws requiring car manufacturers to include seat belts - etc., etc., etc.
Is it bad from the planet's perspective (not an actual thing, but an argument I already addressed anyway) to not exist?
If so, then it still does not require something man-made to be bad for the environment...
That's pretty incoherent even for one of your (perhaps too hastily written?) retorts...
If an asteroid destroys the environment, would it have to be man-made?
or gamma rays, black holes, etc., etc., etc...
if bad for the environment doesn't include bad for plants, animals, and human 'individual's then we are using different definitions.
unless supernatural forces intervene, the entire earth will eventually be destroyed by natural causes - the sun, gravity, heat death, etc. etc. etc.
Then I guess naturally occurring things can be bad after all, eh?
CO2 naturally occurs in your lungs, so how could it kill you?
