Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,833 Year: 4,090/9,624 Month: 961/974 Week: 288/286 Day: 9/40 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical Creationism Requires Evolution
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4042
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 22 of 121 (453186)
02-01-2008 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Crooked to what standard
02-01-2008 4:07 PM


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.
Then you don't knoww hat a mutation is. Words have very specific meanings. "Mutation" is one such word.
quote:
mu·ta·tion /myute‘n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[myoo-tey-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. Biology.
a. a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.
b. an individual, species, or the like, resulting from such a departure.
2. the act or process of changing.
3. a change or alteration, as in form or nature.
4. Phonetics. umlaut.
5. Linguistics. (in Celtic languages) syntactically determined morphophonemic phenomena that affect initial sounds of words.
The Biology definition is the relevant one.
When a genetic antibiotic resistance is present in one generation and not in previous generations, for example, a mutation has occurred.
Whether you would "call" it a mutation is irrelevant.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-01-2008 4:07 PM Crooked to what standard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-01-2008 5:00 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4042
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 24 of 121 (453218)
02-01-2008 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Crooked to what standard
02-01-2008 5:00 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.
False. We can directly observe the DNA of the ancestor population and the resistant population. A mutation typically takes the form of something as simple as a "mistake" in copying DNA from parent to child, and can result in a slight modification, duplication, or subtraction in one or more base pairs, which can cause all manner of different features to be expressed (especially when you stack them over mutliple generations).
Mutations are very different from already-existing recessive genes that simply arent expressed, which is what you're talking about.
Again, it seems you don't understand what a mutation is, or why we know that they exist. We've seen them, with direct observation. You have several mutations yourself, in fact.
Just a little off-topic, your signature.
quote:
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.
It's more than a little off-topic, but at the risk of Admin's ire, I'll bite.
If you know with absolute certainty that, after being tortured and executed, you will then spend three days in Hell, after which you will come back to life and then ascend directly to Heaven and be worshipped for thousands of years with literally unlimited power...
That's not a sacrifice. That's an inconvenience, for which you receive an unlimited reward. Calling a sacrifice demeans any real heroes who have given up their lives, permanently and with no hope of an afterlife or other reward, to save or improve the lives of others.
A sacrifice requires that you give something up. When you get it back after three days with interes, it wasn't a sacrifice.
If 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.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-01-2008 5:00 PM Crooked to what standard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-01-2008 5:30 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4042
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 44 of 121 (453767)
02-04-2008 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Crooked to what standard
02-04-2008 12:01 AM


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.
Except we can see and measure the motions of tectonic plates as it happens today. We know exactly at what speed they are moving.
Suggesting that they moved at such an incredibly different rate in the past requires a fantastic amount of energy, and an incredible force to slow them down to what is observed today.
It's not even that all of moder Geology says that your little idea (and we've heard it here before, I may add) is completely disassociated with the facts. Every other discipline of science agrees, independently, that the Earth is incredibly old, and that no global flood took place. THere is no genetic bottleneck as should be seen in a flood scenario. There is no universal sediment layer. Radiometric dating disagrees with the young Earth. Recorded human history in such ancient cultures as the Aboriginal Australians disagrees with a global flood. Tree rings, like those from the Methuselah tree disagree with the Flood and a young Earth.
These ridiculous "ideas" paraded around as "alternative theories" without a shred of evidence for them and a mountain of contradictory evidence staring them in the face work only for those without even the barest grasp of the scientific principles they are challenging. It's the function of a mind desperate to cling to its beliefs in the face of contradictions from observable reality.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-04-2008 12:01 AM Crooked to what standard has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4042
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 51 of 121 (453925)
02-04-2008 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by tesla
02-04-2008 6:49 PM


Re: Devolution?
how does chromosomes have anything to do with how evolution and adaption works?
In two words? Nearly everything.
your trying to look at 2 objects of similar form then ask why they arnt identical?
since when does chromosomes only add or subtract in evolution?
explain to me why some people got pink eyes and white hairless skin? why do some people have hair all over their bodies and face? why do some people get cancer and some not?
just because chromosomes are different in number, doesn't mean that it cannot have either been added or subtracted only,by way of evolution.
it is just as logical that a chromosomes was lost, as a chromosome was added.
You don't understand evolution. You don't understand even the most basic concepts of genetics. You have literally no idea what teen4christ is talking about.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by tesla, posted 02-04-2008 6:49 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by tesla, posted 02-04-2008 7:19 PM Rahvin 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