Bible accepts evolution

Dear platypus,You are apparently unaware that most Christians accept descent with modifications and the adaptive nature that drives Micro-evolution. In fact, Genesis 6 documents us descents with modification or micro-evolution of the union of the sons of God (prehistoric mankind) and the daughters of Adam (Human) producing giant offspring becoming mighty men of old.Again, Microevolution is God's way of keeping "kinds" within their own "kinds". Micro assures that dogs remain dogs.... cats remain cats...they evolve or change...but within their own "kind". IOW, Micro-evolution is observable and happens every time a baby is born.What we reject is the leap of logic and faith being employed by blind people like you who will try to apply the same mechanism to explain macro-evolution (the goo-to-you theory). Come on get real.Macro-evolution is strictly historical with no evidence to show except lots of speculations. It is classic equivocation by evolutionists to mean macroevolution when they speak of evolution, but turn to microevolution when asked for evidence.How convenient.

Things reproduce according to their kind, just like the Bible says (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25). They always have and they always will”while ever this world exists."There are many breeds of pigeons, cattle, horses, dogs, etc., but they are all pigeons, cattle, horses, dogs, etc. Recombination of existing genes can produce enormous variety within a kind, but the variation is limited by the genes present. If there are no genes present for producing feathers, you can breed reptiles for a billion years and you will not get anything with feathers!"

Here's a simple definition of a "kind"Kind
1. A group of individuals linked by traits held in common. 2. A particular variety; a sort: What kind of soap do you like best?
3. Fundamental, underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence. 4. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color. 5. Archaic MannerLet see if you can go around it. :-)

>>>What about mutation? That can cause all kinds of wacky stuff.You accept emormous variety within a kind. Feathers are just an enormous variety of reptile's scales.<<<*************************************Question: How do I reply with auto quotes (like yours) on this forum?*************************************To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of new information to be added. Typical bacteria have about 2,000 proteins; a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs to be new information added. Where does it come from? Not from mutations ” they degrade information.Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful”it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.' (Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1977, p. 28.) (Source)Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.

Dr. Jones>>>> So what "kind" does a hyena fall into? How about Homo spaiens what "kind" are we?<<<<We are a product of a descent with modification -- the union between the descendants of the prehistoric woman (Mt. Eve 150-190K years ago) and the Adam; descendants (human).Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.

CatholicScientidt wrote: >>I disagree. Mutations can promote information.<<****************************************New 'species' can and have formed, if by definition we mean something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus, but this is not evidence for evolution. The new species have no new genetic information! For example, a 'new species' has arisen in Drosophila, the ferment fly so popular in undergraduate genetics laboratories. The new 'species' cannot breed with the parent species but is fertile with its own type, so it is, by definition, a new 'species'. However, there is no new genetic information, just the physical rearrangement of the genes on one chromosome ” technically called a 'chromosome translocation'.Again, facts talk, conjectures walk. Cite a clear example of a new function (sight from sightlessness, feathers from scales, etc.) that arose out of a new genetic information created.It is regularly observed that CHANCE does not create new information, it merely garbles it, leading to less information no matter how much time you a lot. So 4.5 billions years?Heck, I'll give you 100 billion years, and chance will still not produce anything with specified complexity.

Dr. Jones: >>>You ignore the fact that we share 95+% of our DNA with Chimps.<<<Just because a Creature has bones, which look like another creature's bones, or have similar DNA does Not mean that both sets of bones or DNA evolved from the same ancestor -- but instead, is evidence that we all have a Common Creator. His name is Jesus.

Thanks, Chiroptera!!!I like what I see in your link. Keep up with the good job.But anyway, so far my all my opposition have shown is genomic similarities. And they are INTERPRETING that discovery as support for their view. That’s fine and dandy, but guess what? That’s just ONE INTERPRETATION. I could also interpret that same discovery in light of my view. That the similarities are there because they all came from one Designer, just like the Porsche and the Volkswagen Beetle have similarities (like engines in the back) because they were designed by the same person. So what they have given as verification, is no verification at all but a mere interpretation (rolling my eyes).Similarly, in your case (OT), if a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be printed with every page doubled, it would not be more informative than the proper book. (Brave students of evolutionary professors might like to ask whether they would get extra marks for handing in two copies of the same assignment.Yeah right... :-)Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.

Dear Readers,"Microevolution or descent with modification is the process that is responsible for the many variations and adoptation of species or living things, such as dogs and finches.As I ahve posted before....Microevolution or descent with modification happens every time a baby is born. It is God's way of keeping "kinds" within their own "kinds". Micro assures that dogs remain dogs.... cats remain cats...they evolve or change...but within their own "kind".Example: Cat's Family - A Lion (male) and a Tiger (female) producing Giant "LIGER". See link (scroll all the way down).Detailed information on hybridisation in big cats. Includes tigons, ligers, leopons and others.See, it really amazing how the discovery of Science Today support the TRUTH of the Bible written many centuries ago -- the sons of God (prehistoric mankind) producing GIANT offsprings - Mighty Men of old, men renown - AFTER their union with the Daughters of Men, as documented in Genesis 6!!!On the other hand, Macro-Evolution is a Lie from the pits of Hell and excludes God from His own Creation. The fact that God continues to Create confuses those who believe wolf like ungulates evolved into Whales.IOW, Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird."Such acceptance by Blind Faith is typical for most Evols. With little or No evidence, these zealous worshippers claim they don't have Evol Religion, but their own words betray them.

Dear Ringo,Honestly, I agree with you and jaywill. In fact, both of you made a very good point. And, I don't think I could said any better. :-)You are correct, the second example has nothing to do with micro-evolution, whatsoever.He should have cited the making of Eve from Adam's rib -- now that is mutation and duplication (cloning) with added "new fuction" but no new genetic information - one flesh. :-)Therefore, I will give credit where the credit is due -- to both of you, of course. Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.

quote:

---

But if it inserted one letter, or repeated a letter, or removed a letter, and the only way you could read it was one letter at a time, then it would have caused a whole shift in the rest of the 'information' in the book.

​

This would be, in fact, new information. This malfunction (random mutation) can actually add information, and cause benefital mutations that can cause enough change in a species that this changed species can no longer reproduce with the parent species and then evolution has occured.

---

Read my lips very slowly..."Different genes" is not the same as "new genes", you still don't get any new genetic information, just less...And in case you missed it the first time I posted it...Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful”it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.' (Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1977, p. 28.)To illustrate: if “superman” were the duplicated “gene”, and mutations in the letters changed it to “sxyxvawtu ”, you have clearly lost information, although you have a new sequence. This is the difference between complexity and specified complexity. A pile of sand is complex , but is information-poor, because it specifies nothing. (source)BTW, what does it got to do with the topic, heh?

quote:

---

So you assert....

​

"Different genes" can produce new genetic information.

​

"New genes" are not required for new genetic information.

---

Nice Strawman argument, however, that is not my assertion but your own made up premise & lying story.Such arrogance and ignorance is rarely seen especially from those who called themselves "catholic scientist" -- but could not distinguish the difference between "new function" vs. "new genetic information" -- based on scientific definition -- to prove their blind faith in MACRO-evolution.Here, for you additional learning ...."Mutations have been scientifically observed to give an organism a new function (descent with modification or micro-evolution), they have not however been observed to make the organism more complex, that is, building upon the existing DNA which must be required for evolution to advance (macro-evolution). In other words there has never been a mutation that has increased or added to the genetic information of an organism.""The fact is that since mutations only scramble the existing DNA to achieve a different read-out, resulting in (at times) a beneficial adaptation to the enviroment, this cannot be evolution! In fact, within the observable science we have on mutations, it is creation that predicts the types of changes we see created by them." (source)Mutations don't add information (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceNow, the question is -- are those genes you mentioned classified as entirely NEW KIND from the genes' (classification) that it came from, originally - in order to support your claim of macro-evolution?IF SO, SHOW US A PROOF OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM WITHOUT APPEALING TO MICRO-EVOLUTION'S PROVEN AND ACCEPTED EVIDENCES. Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.

You have not explain anything to me that is based on reality or proven scientific fact.In order for me to answer your hypothetical question or assumption, first, you must show us where is a real-world scientifically observable example of a mutation producing “New Genetic Information. I am all ears (((((((What you have tried to cite in your example is frame-shifting of the sequence of DNA. The frame-shift mutation did not add onto the existing DNA rather it only scrambled what was there to begin with.Did you even try to read and understand the link I have provided you?Here is a simple example of how a frame-shift mutations works:ONE FAT FOX ATE THE CATThe frame-shift would delete the first ”T’ to shift over the letters after the word containing the 'T', the sentence becomes:ONE FAF OXA TET HEC ATIndeed this example doesn't make the frame-shifted DNA read-out mean anything, but in the case of the nylon-metabolising enzyme’s it worked. In most other cases a frame-shift mutation is not a good thing and causes a disruption to the genes.The evolutionist would claim that the bacteria has indeed increased information as it produced a new read-out. But this new read-out is still a subset of the already existing DNA. The frame-shift mutation did not add onto the existing DNA rather it only scrambled what was there! There is no way around it, the variation or changes cannot become massive changes needed because if all it does is re-arrange the existing DNA it is limited to that DNA. That is why if they could produce some natural process that builds on, not scrambles the existing DNA to cause a new function they would have something. If anything I would say this is a special adaptation mechanism in play, which would be creationism, rather than evolution observed.All we have is a fast mutating species, and after millions of generations of reproduction, it still retains the basic properties as originally described when discovered in 1889 and is still identifiable as itself. You may disagree, but I find it quite evident that the DNA genome can recombine in specific pre-programmed ways for specific purposes in relation to the enviroment. All the nylon bug displays is an example of this.That the bacteria mutate so that they can break down nylon waste as their food sources can still fall under the creationist model until the bacteria literally become something else. Then and only then will evolution have a strong case in the realm of mutations being the mechanism for the massive changes needed. (same source)

Dear Unbelievers,Just so you know....The title is Distorted - should be - Evolutionist Accept the Teachings of Genesis as Science. :-)The Scripture has been speaking of science and micro-evolution from the beginning -- as I have demonstrated on this thead alone -- Even BEFORE a single so called "scientist" / "evolutionist" learned how to cry (from birth), wipe their noses and whine about it.Therefore, nobody here is telling us anything that is new to us biblically speaking.TRY AGAIN? Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.

quote:

---

... but nobody has shown yet that the Bible speaks about evolution as science defines it.

​

If you want to show that, we have a whole thread ahead of us.

---

Of course, the Bible does not recognize evolutionism as "science" as defined by them.If you try to do that, then, you know the drill. :-)