Creationists

[daws101]

You're not fab?

your first sentence is a bogus ASSumption.
the second is a lame attempt at sarcasm.

Are you gonna actually discuss science or hide behind a faulty english lesson ?

when you do,I will.

gonna is slang!

 

[daws101]

Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2


An in-depth look

by Dr. David N. Menton on

May 23, 2007

Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish, Part 2 - Answers in Genesis

Instead of jumping to conclusions take a look.

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_53-57.pdf

the article

in your link is not vaild, it's a rationalization and not science.

Do you realize rationalization is done in science ? How do you think scientist reach conclusions ?

scientists do not rationalize:b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
: to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct
they do however assume, only when there is substantial emperical evidence to do so.
It's clear you have no concept of the scientific method:

 

[daws101]

Sorry but i can hear people laughing you right now for this post.

Computers program themselves correct ?

You can't say you weren't warned.

If, as you vehemently demand, intelligence can ONLY arise from intelligence, and no intelligence "programmed" your Designer, then your Designer obviously can not be intelligent.

My creator has always been, that is the difference in being infinite versus finite. He has no beginning and no end.

So where did intelligence come from ? where did the information come from to create the brain naturally ?

your assumption that a "creator" exists is erroneous as is your infinite versus finite. you have no proof of either
since we know the universe is not in a "steady state" infinite and finite are relative terms.
so if your "creator" existed it would have had to begin somewhere, sometime and will end somewhere, sometime.

 

[Youwerecreated]

the article

in your link is not vaild, it's a rationalization and not science.

Do you realize rationalization is done in science ? How do you think scientist reach conclusions ?

scientists do not rationalize:b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
: to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct
they do however assume, only when there is substantial emperical evidence to do so.
It's clear you have no concept of the scientific method:

Wrong again assumptions come from a lack of evidence. Conclusions come from reasoning on the evidence.

The scientific method is testing the hypotheses,so tell me how they test a hypotheses of evolution if they are not able to observe it ?

 

[LOki]

Sorry but i can hear people laughing you right now for this post.

Computers program themselves correct ?

You can't say you weren't warned.

If, as you vehemently demand, intelligence can ONLY arise from intelligence, and no intelligence "programmed" your Designer, then your Designer obviously can not be intelligent.

My creator has always been, that is the difference in being infinite versus finite. He has no beginning and no end.

This is "special pleading."

It is an invalid explanation for where the intelligence of this "Creator" of yours came from.

In fact, it's no explanation at all. Given your response, there is no valid reason reason at all to say that this "Creator" of yours is intelligent; if, as you vehemently demand, intelligence can ONLY arise from intelligence, and no intelligence "programmed" this "Creator" of yours, then this "Creator" of yours obviously can not be intelligent.

Which means, even if your assertion that this "Creator" of yours exists was valid (and let's just be clear; it's not), that some other explanation for the existence of "intelligence" must be considered.

Additionally, it's a case of "special pleading" for the existence of this "Creator" of yours; the argument for which is inevitably "question-begging."

Now I can offer a competing argument, featuring "special pleading" as yours does:

"Human beings (the most appropriately "intelligent" beings evident) are most likely the source of their own intelligence; human beings "created," if you will, their own intelligence."
Because it has been well established that you're an intellectually dishonest retard, I find it necessary to point out explicitly that I am not asserting the above argument for any other purpose than to demonstrate the insurmountable weakness of yours.​

This competing argument (featuring "special pleading"), that I have submitted above, enjoys the benefit of actually deserving to some extent the request for special treatment; as it turns out, human beings are the most evident source of intelligence. And, the argument has the additional benefit of not having to fabricate an intelligence that is arbitrarily declared inexplicable.

So where did intelligence come from ?

From somewhere other than your imaginary friend, apparently.

where did the information come from to create the brain naturally ?

It appears to me that Natural Selection allows for the accumulation of natural processes whose synergy amounts to what is commonly held to be "intelligence." And it does so without having to fabricate an explanation that is arbitrarily declared inexplicable; ... you know, like your explanation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You can't say you weren't warned.

If, as you vehemently demand, intelligence can ONLY arise from intelligence, and no intelligence "programmed" your Designer, then your Designer obviously can not be intelligent.

My creator has always been, that is the difference in being infinite versus finite. He has no beginning and no end.

So where did intelligence come from ? where did the information come from to create the brain naturally ?

your assumption that a "creator" exists is erroneous as is your infinite versus finite. you have no proof of either
since we know the universe is not in a "steady state" infinite and finite are relative terms.
so if your "creator" existed it would have had to begin somewhere, sometime and will end somewhere, sometime.

God exists before time putting him outside of the universe. Time for man began with the beginning of the universe..

Once again you use finite explanations to explain infinite.

If time began with the universe where did matter come from ?

 

[daws101]

Do you realize rationalization is done in science ? How do you think scientist reach conclusions ?

scientists do not rationalize:b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
: to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct
they do however assume, only when there is substantial empirical evidence to do so.
It's clear you have no concept of the scientific method:

Wrong again assumptions come from a lack of evidence. Conclusions come from reasoning on the evidence.

The scientific method is testing the hypotheses,so tell me how they test a hypotheses of evolution if they are not able to observe it ?

thanks for playing (cue buzzer)sorry but again you've spun the meaning to fit your false premise.
as already explained
I'll try to make this simple, a scientific ASSumption s based on the best available evidence not the lack of it, lets say a paleontologist finds 50% of a T- REX ,SAY THE RIGHT HALF..They can safely assume that specimen has another half.
it not the same as your assumptions about "intelligent design" which assumes facts not in evidence
as to not being able to observe it the fossil record shows it, Darwin and many other scientists have observed it in action
germs and viruses do it everyday

 

[daws101]

My creator has always been, that is the difference in being infinite versus finite. He has no beginning and no end.

So where did intelligence come from ? where did the information come from to create the brain naturally ?

your assumption that a "creator" exists is erroneous as is your infinite versus finite. you have no proof of either
since we know the universe is not in a "steady state" infinite and finite are relative terms.
so if your "creator" existed it would have had to begin somewhere, sometime and will end somewhere, sometime.

God exists before time putting him outside of the universe. Time for man began with the beginning of the universe..

Once again you use finite explanations to explain infinite.

If time began with the universe where did matter come from ?

once again you're presenting belief as fact
you have no evidence that there is anything outside the universe...since man was not around for 99% of the universes existence, your "theory" that time started with man is a false premise.

 

[cbirch2]

DNA Code Barrier

LMAO The Instution of Origins Education. HAHAHAHAHAH



Except horizonta gene transfer is an actual thing and the DNA code barrier is something that does not exist outside of the institute for origins education.



Obviously the genetic information of an animal only has the information encoded in it. Thats like saying the only things in a book are whats written in it...pretty self explanatory.



omg what does that have to do with anything you retard!?!?!?!?!?!?!

maybe you need to articulate your point further. so far i have:

1. Mutts have a large gene pool
2. ?????
3. Evolution doesnt exist.



Wow....just wow.....

Let me help you one more time.

If each species did not possess only genetic data to produce what they are you would see some funny creatures coming out of mothers. The genetic information gets bred out not in and that is why they can only reproduce what they are.

Dude, what the fuck are you talking about. Again, obviously the offspring of an animal has roughly the same genetic code as its parent. Do you see anyone arguing that? But notice the roughly part. Small mutations occur in the process of DNA replication. Infections by prophrage viruses add information to the genome. Information in the form of strands of nucleotides can, and most certainly are, randomly added. The mutations that are either neutral, or more rarely beneficial, build up over generations.

If two groups of animals become separated they will continue to vary and adapt in this way. Random genetic code is added to the genome and the environment decides which combination of that code will survive and dominate the gene pool (remember that word?). In the case of two separate groups, the environment has no way of guiding the separate gene pools in the same direction. If the groups remain separated the genomes of organisms in each will become less similar, and reproduction will become harder, and the phenomena will become more pronounced.

This is why you see some animals, like a tiger and a lion, or a horse and a donkey, that can still produce offspring together. They are still similar enough that fertilization can occasionally take place. But the offspring usually have problems, mules (horse x donkey) are sterile. This is because while the genomes are similar enough to reproduce in some cases, theyve still diverged significantly.

If everything is defined by a breed, please explain a mule or a liger.

What prevents species from cross breeding if there is no barrier ?

Again, please stop using the term barrier. There is no defined barrier. What determines whether or not two organisms can produce viable offspring is the similarity of their genomes. So take two scenarios.

Horses, animals separated by relatively few generations and with similar genomes, can reproduce together fairly successfully. Their offspring are normally fertile horses.

But a horse and a donkey can also reproduce together, and make mules. This is because the horse and the donkey are related just like the two horses were, just by more generations. But their genome has diverged significantly enough so that any offspring that are produced normally have problems, like being sterile.

If god created separate breeds like horses and donkeys, explain a mule.
If god created lions and tigers separate, explain a liger.

I never said beneficial traits can't build up and become part of a gene pool. They just didn't do it over millions of years like you claim prove to me they did build up over millions of years ?

Again, i dont have to. The distinction is imaginary, its in your mind. Can you explain any process by which build ups of beneficial mutations in the short term doesnt lead to a build up of information in the long term?

Thats like saying if you keep counting by one you wont eventually hit a million.

Your side don't want to admit to the barrier ,so as far as they will go is reproductive isolation.But gene flow has barriers because animals only breed with their own kind.Then you have the DNA barrier,that for two organisms to breed they have to be DNA compatible.

Again, you wont find DNA barrier outside of the institute for origins creation. What determines whether or not two organism can reproduce is the similarity of their genomes, which of course is reflective of how far separated they are.

You can say mutations build up over millions of years all you want it does not make it so and that can't be shown through other then imagination..

And you can imagine that if you count by one you wont reach a hundred.

Correct and that is a DNA barrier if Dna is not compatible.

There is no barrier! Reproduction is a fluid concept that depends on the similarity of genomes. Hence lions that can mate with tigers.

 

[Youwerecreated]

LMAO The Instution of Origins Education. HAHAHAHAHAH



Except horizonta gene transfer is an actual thing and the DNA code barrier is something that does not exist outside of the institute for origins education.



Obviously the genetic information of an animal only has the information encoded in it. Thats like saying the only things in a book are whats written in it...pretty self explanatory.



omg what does that have to do with anything you retard!?!?!?!?!?!?!

maybe you need to articulate your point further. so far i have:

1. Mutts have a large gene pool
2. ?????
3. Evolution doesnt exist.



Wow....just wow.....



Dude, what the fuck are you talking about. Again, obviously the offspring of an animal has roughly the same genetic code as its parent. Do you see anyone arguing that? But notice the roughly part. Small mutations occur in the process of DNA replication. Infections by prophrage viruses add information to the genome. Information in the form of strands of nucleotides can, and most certainly are, randomly added. The mutations that are either neutral, or more rarely beneficial, build up over generations.

If two groups of animals become separated they will continue to vary and adapt in this way. Random genetic code is added to the genome and the environment decides which combination of that code will survive and dominate the gene pool (remember that word?). In the case of two separate groups, the environment has no way of guiding the separate gene pools in the same direction. If the groups remain separated the genomes of organisms in each will become less similar, and reproduction will become harder, and the phenomena will become more pronounced.

This is why you see some animals, like a tiger and a lion, or a horse and a donkey, that can still produce offspring together. They are still similar enough that fertilization can occasionally take place. But the offspring usually have problems, mules (horse x donkey) are sterile. This is because while the genomes are similar enough to reproduce in some cases, theyve still diverged significantly.

If everything is defined by a breed, please explain a mule or a liger.

What prevents species from cross breeding if there is no barrier ?

Again, please stop using the term barrier. There is no defined barrier. What determines whether or not two organisms can produce viable offspring is the similarity of their genomes. So take two scenarios.

Horses, animals separated by relatively few generations and with similar genomes, can reproduce together fairly successfully. Their offspring are normally fertile horses.

But a horse and a donkey can also reproduce together, and make mules. This is because the horse and the donkey are related just like the two horses were, just by more generations. But their genome has diverged significantly enough so that any offspring that are produced normally have problems, like being sterile.

If god created separate breeds like horses and donkeys, explain a mule.
If god created lions and tigers separate, explain a liger.



Again, i dont have to. The distinction is imaginary, its in your mind. Can you explain any process by which build ups of beneficial mutations in the short term doesnt lead to a build up of information in the long term?

Thats like saying if you keep counting by one you wont eventually hit a million.



Again, you wont find DNA barrier outside of the institute for origins creation. What determines whether or not two organism can reproduce is the similarity of their genomes, which of course is reflective of how far separated they are.

You can say mutations build up over millions of years all you want it does not make it so and that can't be shown through other then imagination..

And you can imagine that if you count by one you wont reach a hundred.

Correct and that is a DNA barrier if Dna is not compatible.

There is no barrier! Reproduction is a fluid concept that depends on the similarity of genomes. Hence lions that can mate with tigers.

Hey we agree on something. Yes two different breeds from the same family can cross breed and reproduce if their DNA is close enough. But one of the major problems is almost all species breed with others of their kind,very little cross breeding happens unless through selective breeding by humans.

Now let me give you the three scientific principles that makes macro-evolution impossible.I will do it in my language.

#1 principle

The code barrier,referred to as the DNA Code Barrier,is a scientific principle that one kind of plant or animal only has the genetic information in it's gene pool to produce its own kind.

Example, take a dog as a simple example. While there may exist the genetic data that produces a wide variety of adaptations within the dogs particular DNA,the simple fact is that dogs still only possess the genetic information to produce other dogs.

Darwinist must have a way for dogs to produce non-dogs,and this would only be feasible if there were a method for nature to add massive amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to an already existing gene pool.

There is no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to any kind of plant or animals DNA. The DNA code barrier is a huge problem for you evolutionist.

#2 principle

Gene depletion is the scientific principle that all adaptations and/or mutations are the result of the sorting or the loss of the parents genetic information. So adaptational variations,as well as mutational changes,are caused by the recombination or loss of the origional genetic information which was inherited from the parents and not by the gain of new and beneficial genetic information. Mutations ans adapted organisms are not genetically stronger as Neo darwinism falsely teaches.

Example, Ranchers managing gene depletion is how ranchers breed out traits to produce meatier cows and cows that produce more milk.

This is done by a loss of genetic information not by the gain of new genetic information in the cows DNA. The loss of genetic information is referred to as the scientific principle of gene depletion.


#3 fact

Natural selection is the scientifically-observed process whereby in free competition for resources the weaker of the species tends to be eliminated and unable to compete with the stronger of its kind.This means that the genetically weaker mutations and adaptations are the ones most likely removed from the population.

Lets put the three scientific principles together and show why there is no viable evidence of neo darwinism ever taking place.

The DNA Code Barrier + Gene Depletion + Natural selection makes darwinian style change scientifically impossible.

 

[Youwerecreated]

your assumption that a "creator" exists is erroneous as is your infinite versus finite. you have no proof of either
since we know the universe is not in a "steady state" infinite and finite are relative terms.
so if your "creator" existed it would have had to begin somewhere, sometime and will end somewhere, sometime.

God exists before time putting him outside of the universe. Time for man began with the beginning of the universe..

Once again you use finite explanations to explain infinite.

If time began with the universe where did matter come from ?

once again you're presenting belief as fact
you have no evidence that there is anything outside the universe...since man was not around for 99% of the universes existence, your "theory" that time started with man is a false premise.

Belief can be fact.

You have no proof nothing exists outside of the universe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

scientists do not rationalize:b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
: to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct
they do however assume, only when there is substantial empirical evidence to do so.
It's clear you have no concept of the scientific method:

Wrong again assumptions come from a lack of evidence. Conclusions come from reasoning on the evidence.

The scientific method is testing the hypotheses,so tell me how they test a hypotheses of evolution if they are not able to observe it ?

thanks for playing (cue buzzer)sorry but again you've spun the meaning to fit your false premise.
as already explained
I'll try to make this simple, a scientific ASSumption s based on the best available evidence not the lack of it, lets say a paleontologist finds 50% of a T- REX ,SAY THE RIGHT HALF..They can safely assume that specimen has another half.
it not the same as your assumptions about "intelligent design" which assumes facts not in evidence
as to not being able to observe it the fossil record shows it, Darwin and many other scientists have observed it in action
germs and viruses do it everyday

If you assume all life was the product of a natural process and absent of a creator what is your evidence ? you have to show evidence for two things. #1 evidence of the natural process that created all life #2 evidence there is no creator.

 

[cbirch2]

What prevents species from cross breeding if there is no barrier ?

Again, please stop using the term barrier. There is no defined barrier. What determines whether or not two organisms can produce viable offspring is the similarity of their genomes. So take two scenarios.

Horses, animals separated by relatively few generations and with similar genomes, can reproduce together fairly successfully. Their offspring are normally fertile horses.

But a horse and a donkey can also reproduce together, and make mules. This is because the horse and the donkey are related just like the two horses were, just by more generations. But their genome has diverged significantly enough so that any offspring that are produced normally have problems, like being sterile.

If god created separate breeds like horses and donkeys, explain a mule.
If god created lions and tigers separate, explain a liger.



Again, i dont have to. The distinction is imaginary, its in your mind. Can you explain any process by which build ups of beneficial mutations in the short term doesnt lead to a build up of information in the long term?

Thats like saying if you keep counting by one you wont eventually hit a million.



Again, you wont find DNA barrier outside of the institute for origins creation. What determines whether or not two organism can reproduce is the similarity of their genomes, which of course is reflective of how far separated they are.



And you can imagine that if you count by one you wont reach a hundred.

Correct and that is a DNA barrier if Dna is not compatible.

There is no barrier! Reproduction is a fluid concept that depends on the similarity of genomes. Hence lions that can mate with tigers.

Hey we agree on something. Yes two different breeds from the same family can cross breed and reproduce if their DNA is close enough. But one of the major problems is almost all species breed with others of their kind,very little cross breeding happens unless through selective breeding by humans.

Now let me give you the three scientific principles that makes macro-evolution impossible.I will do it in my language.

#1 principle

The code barrier,referred to as the DNA Code Barrier,is a scientific principle that one kind of plant or animal only has the genetic information in it's gene pool to produce its own kind.

This should read

"... DNA Code Barrier,is a creationist principle"

Example, take a dog as a simple example. While there may exist the genetic data that produces a wide variety of adaptations within the dogs particular DNA,the simple fact is that dogs still only possess the genetic information to produce other dogs.

Darwinist must have a way for dogs to produce non-dogs,and this would only be feasible if there were a method for nature to add massive amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to an already existing gene pool.

There is no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new and beneficial genetic information to any kind of plant or animals DNA. The DNA code barrier is a huge problem for you evolutionist.

Again, this is just blatantly false. Not only is it false, but it shows a total lack of understanding as to how mutations form and how an organisms DNA functions.

There are plenty of ways to add information to genomes. It can happen in small amounts each generation. It can happen through viral infection. It can happen through duplication of chromosomes.

How many times to i have to point you to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics)

#2 principle

Gene depletion is the scientific principle that all adaptations and/or mutations are the result of the sorting or the loss of the parents genetic information. So adaptational variations,as well as mutational changes,are caused by the recombination or loss of the origional genetic information which was inherited from the parents and not by the gain of new and beneficial genetic information. Mutations ans adapted organisms are not genetically stronger as Neo darwinism falsely teaches.

Again, if you reject one entire side of the story then you have an argument. But information can be added. More mutations are not the loss of information, and those that are wont likely be passed on to dominate the gene pool

Example, Ranchers managing gene depletion is how ranchers breed out traits to produce meatier cows and cows that produce more milk.

This is done by a loss of genetic information not by the gain of new genetic information in the cows DNA. The loss of genetic information is referred to as the scientific principle of gene depletion.

Cows dont normally attempt to breed based on genotypes in nature you idiot. Of course humans can selectively mate animals to weed out certain genotypes or phenotypes. But this isnt how nature works; in fact its pretty much the opposite of how nature works.

#3 fact

Natural selection is the scientifically-observed process whereby in free competition for resources the weaker of the species tends to be eliminated and unable to compete with the stronger of its kind.This means that the genetically weaker mutations and adaptations are the ones most likely removed from the population.

And genetically stronger ones survive.

Lets put the three scientific principles together and show why there is no viable evidence of neo darwinism ever taking place.

The DNA Code Barrier + Gene Depletion + Natural selection makes darwinian style change scientifically impossible.

lulllz kk

 

[cbirch2]

Ok i also need you to define a few of your terms for me duuuude...

So do organisms within the same family share a common ancestor?

What exactly is the relationship between a lion and a tiger, and why can they reproduce?
​

 

[Youwerecreated]

Again, please stop using the term barrier. There is no defined barrier. What determines whether or not two organisms can produce viable offspring is the similarity of their genomes. So take two scenarios.

Horses, animals separated by relatively few generations and with similar genomes, can reproduce together fairly successfully. Their offspring are normally fertile horses.

But a horse and a donkey can also reproduce together, and make mules. This is because the horse and the donkey are related just like the two horses were, just by more generations. But their genome has diverged significantly enough so that any offspring that are produced normally have problems, like being sterile.

If god created separate breeds like horses and donkeys, explain a mule.
If god created lions and tigers separate, explain a liger.



Again, i dont have to. The distinction is imaginary, its in your mind. Can you explain any process by which build ups of beneficial mutations in the short term doesnt lead to a build up of information in the long term?

Thats like saying if you keep counting by one you wont eventually hit a million.



Again, you wont find DNA barrier outside of the institute for origins creation. What determines whether or not two organism can reproduce is the similarity of their genomes, which of course is reflective of how far separated they are.



And you can imagine that if you count by one you wont reach a hundred.



There is no barrier! Reproduction is a fluid concept that depends on the similarity of genomes. Hence lions that can mate with tigers.

Hey we agree on something. Yes two different breeds from the same family can cross breed and reproduce if their DNA is close enough. But one of the major problems is almost all species breed with others of their kind,very little cross breeding happens unless through selective breeding by humans.

Now let me give you the three scientific principles that makes macro-evolution impossible.I will do it in my language.

#1 principle

The code barrier,referred to as the DNA Code Barrier,is a scientific principle that one kind of plant or animal only has the genetic information in it's gene pool to produce its own kind.

This should read

"... DNA Code Barrier,is a creationist principle"



Again, this is just blatantly false. Not only is it false, but it shows a total lack of understanding as to how mutations form and how an organisms DNA functions.

There are plenty of ways to add information to genomes. It can happen in small amounts each generation. It can happen through viral infection. It can happen through duplication of chromosomes.

How many times to i have to point you to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics)



Again, if you reject one entire side of the story then you have an argument. But information can be added. More mutations are not the loss of information, and those that are wont likely be passed on to dominate the gene pool



Cows dont normally attempt to breed based on genotypes in nature you idiot. Of course humans can selectively mate animals to weed out certain genotypes or phenotypes. But this isnt how nature works; in fact its pretty much the opposite of how nature works.

#3 fact

Natural selection is the scientifically-observed process whereby in free competition for resources the weaker of the species tends to be eliminated and unable to compete with the stronger of its kind.This means that the genetically weaker mutations and adaptations are the ones most likely removed from the population.

And genetically stronger ones survive.

Lets put the three scientific principles together and show why there is no viable evidence of neo darwinism ever taking place.

The DNA Code Barrier + Gene Depletion + Natural selection makes darwinian style change scientifically impossible.

lulllz kk

Do creationist hold scientific degrees ?

Mutations form from mistakes they are errors do you understand this ?

The way you think there is never information loss that is blatantly false. Anytime there is a change from the origional information it comes at a loss of the origional information.

If the genome still contains genetic information from other creatures then why do animals not give birth to something other then what they are ?

Everything i said can be verified and proven however the argument you make cannot be observed. Off spring are always the same species the parents are.

Genetically stronger survive, is that not what i said ?

Why are purebreds dealing with a smaller gene pool then the mutt ?

Don't act silly when i present you with facts you can't refute.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok i also need you to define a few of your terms for me duuuude...

So do organisms within the same family share a common ancestor?

What exactly is the relationship between a lion and a tiger, and why can they reproduce?
​

Yes and no.

There were many groups of organisms that were created as they are and never changed. They were put in to families by man because some men believe they all evolved .they were put into families because they are similar looking in a morphological sense and through DNA similarity. I will say that there are variations in each family of organisms but how do we know exactly who was created as they are and which breeds came about through variations.

All humans are related there is no doubting that and we we all descended from one set of parents.


They are just two breeds from the same family. They are genetically close enough to reproduce. However they cannot cross breed in the wild they are mortal enemies. Besides tigers are from Asia and lions are from Africa.

Do you notice their offspring show traits from both parents not traits from random mutations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I had to edit the above post as i thought on it my first response was wrong.

 

[Montrovant]

Ok i also need you to define a few of your terms for me duuuude...

So do organisms within the same family share a common ancestor?

What exactly is the relationship between a lion and a tiger, and why can they reproduce?
​

Yes and no.

There were many groups of organisms that were created as they are and never changed. They were put in to families by man because some men believe they all evolved .they were put into families because they are similar looking in a morphological sense and through DNA similarity. I will say that there are variations in each family of organisms but how do we know exactly who was created as they are and which breeds came about through variations.

All humans are related there is no doubting that and we we all descended from one set of parents.


They are just two breeds from the same family. They are genetically close enough to reproduce. However they cannot cross breed in the wild they are mortal enemies. Besides tigers are from Asia and lions are from Africa.

Do you notice their offspring show traits from both parents not traits from random mutations.

If lions and tigers do not interact in the wild, how are they mortal enemies?

 

[cbirch2]

Hey we agree on something. Yes two different breeds from the same family can cross breed and reproduce if their DNA is close enough. But one of the major problems is almost all species breed with others of their kind,very little cross breeding happens unless through selective breeding by humans.

Now let me give you the three scientific principles that makes macro-evolution impossible.I will do it in my language.

#1 principle

The code barrier,referred to as the DNA Code Barrier,is a scientific principle that one kind of plant or animal only has the genetic information in it's gene pool to produce its own kind.

This should read

"... DNA Code Barrier,is a creationist principle"



Again, this is just blatantly false. Not only is it false, but it shows a total lack of understanding as to how mutations form and how an organisms DNA functions.

There are plenty of ways to add information to genomes. It can happen in small amounts each generation. It can happen through viral infection. It can happen through duplication of chromosomes.

How many times to i have to point you to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics)



Again, if you reject one entire side of the story then you have an argument. But information can be added. More mutations are not the loss of information, and those that are wont likely be passed on to dominate the gene pool



Cows dont normally attempt to breed based on genotypes in nature you idiot. Of course humans can selectively mate animals to weed out certain genotypes or phenotypes. But this isnt how nature works; in fact its pretty much the opposite of how nature works.



And genetically stronger ones survive.

Lets put the three scientific principles together and show why there is no viable evidence of neo darwinism ever taking place.

The DNA Code Barrier + Gene Depletion + Natural selection makes darwinian style change scientifically impossible.

lulllz kk

Do creationist hold scientific degrees ?

I actually have yet to see someone that dedicates their time to young earth creationism and actually has a respectable degree. If someone has a degree in management, i dont care what their opinion is on biology...

That said im sure some do hold good degrees...their numbers are just a lot few than those that think the earth is over 6000 years old.

Mutations form from mistakes they are errors do you understand this ?

And somehow that has to be bad? A change in genetic information is just a change in amino acids and a change in protein expression. Different proteins have different uses. Small segments of proteins can certainly be changed so that it yields some beneficial usage beyond its non-mutated function. This isnt even debatable.

The way you think there is never information loss that is blatantly false.

Im not denying there can be information loss. Where do i deny that? The loss of genetic information is certainly a valid mutation....

Anytime there is a change from the origional information it comes at a loss of the origional information.

and a change to new information. If adenine changes to thymine, thats a change of information. The old information, adenine, is lost. The new information, thymine, is added...

Get it?

If the genome still contains genetic information from other creatures then why do animals not give birth to something other then what they are ?

....

..........

A human and a chimpanzee share something like 99% of their genes. So by and large, you do contain the genetic information of other creatures. Again, thats just a fact. DNA is just a sequence of nucleotides.

"The published chimpanzee genome differs from that of the human genome by 1.23% in direct sequence comparisons.[35]"

So you do have the same genetic information as primates do, by and large. If your DNA sequence was ACGTACGTACGT, a primates DNA might be TCGTACGTACGT. Everything but the T is the exact same information.

The difference between us is that we are separated from a common ancestor by many many generations, and both groups have gained and lost information as theyve been separated. For you to give birth to a chimpanzee, that would require that the normal errors in DNA replication somehow happen on the exact right nucleotides and in the exact right amount. its just infinitely not possible.

But it doesnt work like that the other way around.

Everything i said can be verified and proven however the argument you make cannot be observed. Off spring are always the same species the parents are.

What have you proved? Youve just cried that information cant be added. Even "answersingenesis.com" disagrees with you there.

OMG "offspring are always the same species as their parent" is the argument of someone that doesnt understand evolution.

Two populations of big cats become separated. The gene pool of each population randomly diverges because of random mutation and the environment deciding which ones dominate the population. As time passes there is no way to guarantee that the random mutations that come to dominate each gene pool will be similar. In fact all common sense would say they would be different. As time passes those groups would be significantly different, and their genomes may no longer be compatible. When fertilization occurs, there are a lot of A's where T's should be, or C's where G's should be, or whichever combination. Theres no way that you can prevent these random changes in bases from happening in random places.

But within each groups, each successful offspring was only marginally different from their parents.

Do you get it yet?

Genetically stronger survive, is that not what i said ?

Why are purebreds dealing with a smaller gene pool then the mutt ?

because thats the definition of a pure bred so we continue to artificially breed them like that....

There is no such thing as "pure". There is only a combination of nucleotides that we recognize as a distinct lineage and through mating we preserve the gene pool as best we can, without being able to control random mutations in reproduction.

Don't act silly when i present you with facts you can't refute.

Youve presented me with a thoroughly contrived explanation of what you think evolution is and how it works. You have less understanding than a 7th grader.

 

[cbirch2]

Ok i also need you to define a few of your terms for me duuuude...

So do organisms within the same family share a common ancestor?

What exactly is the relationship between a lion and a tiger, and why can they reproduce?
​

Yes and no.

There were many groups of organisms that were created as they are and never changed. They were put in to families by man because some men believe they all evolved .they were put into families because they are similar looking in a morphological sense and through DNA similarity. I will say that there are variations in each family of organisms but how do we know exactly who was created as they are and which breeds came about through variations.

Ok. So this is what i understand of your position.

God created certain animals. Some may have varied within their originally created group, like lions and tigers possibly, but we have absolutely no way of knowing if thats happened or not.

Right?

All humans are related there is no doubting that and we we all descended from one set of parents.

Really? Care to find that somewhere outside of christiananswers?

They are just two breeds from the same family. They are genetically close enough to reproduce. However they cannot cross breed in the wild they are mortal enemies.

Are you talking about the mule now? But what does it mean to be a breed within a family!? Does that mean one original big cat gave birth to successive child cats, and so on with each generation, and eventually two populations became distinct?

And its not as if of they can still reproduce fine. Theyre children are usually sterile.

Besides tigers are from Asia and lions are from Africa.

In other words populations of big cats that were separated geographically and subsequently diverged genetically? Kind of sounds like my exact argument...

Do you notice their offspring show traits from both parents not traits from random mutations.

What?

And is this your explanation for why no nucleobases can be different from parents?

Ok, if one parent has TTTT, and other has AAAA, the combination for the offspring might not be a logical combination of the two. It might not be TTAA or TATA. Maybe DNA replicase made a mistake and the offspring looks like CTAA, rather than TTAA, even though no parent had a C (cytosine), in that gene segment.

The result of that might kill the organism. It might do nothing. It might, for example, allow the protein or catalyze citric acid for use in the krebs cycle.

Get it?