Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical Creationism Requires Evolution
Crooked to what standard
Member (Idle past 5846 days)
Posts: 109
From: Bozeman, Montana, USA
Joined: 01-31-2008


Message 11 of 121 (452974)
01-31-2008 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TheNaturalist
01-26-2008 2:13 PM


First off.... Hola everybody.
Now:
quote:
However, look then, at the future. If, for example, about .1% (reference below) of the genetic difference between dogs can happen in about 4000 years, then it might only take, say, about 40,000 years for a 1% change in the genome, which is almost the same difference between humans and chimpanzees.
Please try this (in your head, because it would take a really long time to do this). Take a regular 52-card deck. Shuffle the deck a couple times, then lay them out in a 8x6 rectangle. Place the extra four cards in the left two columns. Take a picture. Suffle the deck again. Lay the deck out again in the 8x6 rectangle again. Take a new picture. Repeat until you're satisfied that there are the exact same cards in every iteration.
Notice that the cards are always the same in every sequence. There will always be one ace of spades, one five of diamonds, two black jacks, and four tens. No matter how many times you do this, the numbers will never change. The order in which the cards are in will change because of the shuffleing, but the numbers won't. This illistrates Natural Selection, which selects from existing genes. It will never create new ones.
So, with this in mind, you wouldn't need the same 1% difference in dog genes as the 1% difference between humans and chimps. No matter how close chimps are to humans, they will never blend because natural selection cannot produce the needed genes to change a chimp to a human. So, you'd only need the 0.1% difference in dog genes that you mentioned to produce the amount of species, not the 1% between two differant animals.
quote:
If, for example, about .1% (reference below) of the genetic difference between dogs can happen in about 4000 years....
So, the differance in dog types can be created in the 4,000 years since the flood.
Thanks for the opportunity for a first post!
Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
Sotos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-26-2008 2:13 PM TheNaturalist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 02-01-2008 9:21 AM Crooked to what standard has replied
 Message 115 by onifre, posted 02-20-2008 1:52 PM Crooked to what standard has not replied

  
Crooked to what standard
Member (Idle past 5846 days)
Posts: 109
From: Bozeman, Montana, USA
Joined: 01-31-2008


Message 13 of 121 (453075)
02-01-2008 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Quetzal
02-01-2008 9:21 AM


quote:
That's the role of mutation - the piece that you left out of your analogy.
First off, thank you for not insulting me along with providing a fault with my logic. I appreciate that.
Second, when has a mutation ever been beneficial to an organism. Last I checked, environmentalists continue to close nuclear plants (such as Trojan in Washington) because the mutations are hurting fish in the area, not creating better, more apt to survive fish. Also, over 50 years of fruit fly breeding expiraments, even with added effort to increase mutation rates, they've never been able to change the fruit fly to something other than a fruit fly. It has always stayed as a fruit fly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 02-01-2008 9:21 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 02-01-2008 11:34 AM Crooked to what standard has not replied
 Message 15 by teen4christ, posted 02-01-2008 12:03 PM Crooked to what standard has replied
 Message 16 by Quetzal, posted 02-01-2008 1:37 PM Crooked to what standard has replied

  
Crooked to what standard
Member (Idle past 5846 days)
Posts: 109
From: Bozeman, Montana, USA
Joined: 01-31-2008


Message 19 of 121 (453176)
02-01-2008 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by teen4christ
02-01-2008 12:03 PM


quote:
Anti-biotic resistant strains.
Would that be a real mutation, or a 'mutation'? It seems to me that an anti-biotic resistant strain would be more like the survival of the fittest. Such as there are different people, some can't hear, some can't see, etc. some bacteria have a resistants to some phage, and therefore they'll live the next attack of that phage. I wouldn't call that a mutation any more than I'd call colorblindness a mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by teen4christ, posted 02-01-2008 12:03 PM teen4christ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Rahvin, posted 02-01-2008 4:26 PM Crooked to what standard has replied

  
Crooked to what standard
Member (Idle past 5846 days)
Posts: 109
From: Bozeman, Montana, USA
Joined: 01-31-2008


Message 20 of 121 (453179)
02-01-2008 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Quetzal
02-01-2008 1:37 PM


quote:
These are probably good questions (although you've actually muddled two different issues). Unfortunately, the detailed answers required would be waaaaay off topic for this particular thread. If you're interested in learning a bit about this, why not use this bit to propose a new thread to discuss it?
Yeah, I guess. Thanks for correcting me before I get this thread closed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Quetzal, posted 02-01-2008 1:37 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Crooked to what standard
Member (Idle past 5846 days)
Posts: 109
From: Bozeman, Montana, USA
Joined: 01-31-2008


Message 21 of 121 (453182)
02-01-2008 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Coyote
02-01-2008 2:44 PM


quote:
Science has found no evidence to support the idea of a global flood at that or any other time.
Well, if the Flood did happen, and it happened by the hydro plate theory (my personal favorite), then there would be quite a bit of evidence for it. The Mid-Oceanic Ridge, the Grand Canyon, the Ice Age (and frozen mammoths in Siberia), the most recent mass extinction of animals, the sedimentary layers, etc.
So no, there isn't no evidence for a flood. There are a few theories on the flood, and there are evidence for all (or at least most) of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 02-01-2008 2:44 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by TheNaturalist, posted 02-01-2008 6:33 PM Crooked to what standard has replied

  
Crooked to what standard
Member (Idle past 5846 days)
Posts: 109
From: Bozeman, Montana, USA
Joined: 01-31-2008


Message 23 of 121 (453203)
02-01-2008 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rahvin
02-01-2008 4:26 PM


quote:
a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.
Yes, but the genes didn't change to form that resistance. Somewhere, the gene was there, just not apparent (such as a blond guy and a black-haired girl have a black-haired kid. The kid has the blond gene, just not apparent). That wouldn't be a mutation, just a gene that showed itself for the better.
Just a little off-topic, your signature.
quote:
When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
Most humans will suffer two deaths, the separation from life, which is temporary, and the separation from God, which is permanent. The penalty of sin is the separation from God, or eternal death (for without God, there is no life). If Jesus died the First Death (separation from life), then humans who believed in Him wouldn't die. Jesus died the second death for three days. He was separated from God for three days, when He didn't deserve it. Therefore, because He took the second death for us, we don't have to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rahvin, posted 02-01-2008 4:26 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Rahvin, posted 02-01-2008 5:27 PM Crooked to what standard has replied
 Message 26 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 5:54 PM Crooked to what standard has replied
 Message 46 by teen4christ, posted 02-04-2008 12:59 PM Crooked to what standard has not replied

  
Crooked to what standard
Member (Idle past 5846 days)
Posts: 109
From: Bozeman, Montana, USA
Joined: 01-31-2008


Message 25 of 121 (453220)
02-01-2008 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Rahvin
02-01-2008 5:27 PM


quote:
f you'd like to debate it further, start a new thread. I don't think we should compeltely derail this one over my signature line.
I'm sorry, but I think it's a common misconception of Jesus' death and sacrifice. But please, if you'd want to argue about that, I'd be happy to start a new thread.

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
Sotos
Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Rahvin, posted 02-01-2008 5:27 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Crooked to what standard
Member (Idle past 5846 days)
Posts: 109
From: Bozeman, Montana, USA
Joined: 01-31-2008


Message 42 of 121 (453760)
02-03-2008 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by molbiogirl
02-01-2008 5:54 PM


quote:
Please try to stay on topic. Don't clutter up the thread with OT crap.
Somebody tried to make me change my signature (which I did), so is it so bad that I try to fix somebody else's. If you read that, it was under a P.S., and I said that I didn't want that to get off-topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 5:54 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Crooked to what standard
Member (Idle past 5846 days)
Posts: 109
From: Bozeman, Montana, USA
Joined: 01-31-2008


Message 43 of 121 (453761)
02-04-2008 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by TheNaturalist
02-01-2008 6:33 PM


quote:
The "flood" would require that more total water existed on earth after the flood than before it, during the flood. This is because if the earth is to be suddenly "flooded with water", there would, of course, have to be much more water on earth after the flood.
Have you even heard of the hydro plate theory? It states that the water could have been stored underground at high pressure and temperature. It also says that the land of the earth was generally flat before the Flood.
Then the water broke loose and the land started to move, there would have been a time while the earth was totally submerged (with the amout of water that's in the earth's oceans). Then, when land colided with opposing forces (the same force that got it started, because the earth is a sphere and the force went all the way around), it would have buckled, raising the land above the water, forming today's oceans.

Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
Soter
Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by TheNaturalist, posted 02-01-2008 6:33 PM TheNaturalist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2008 1:16 AM Crooked to what standard has not replied
 Message 45 by Taz, posted 02-04-2008 1:38 AM Crooked to what standard has not replied
 Message 53 by obvious Child, posted 02-04-2008 7:35 PM Crooked to what standard has not replied
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 02-04-2008 8:25 PM Crooked to what standard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024