Enoch2021

This quote requires more context to be understandable. Again, I'd really need the larger context of a real argument to evaluate this. This is why quote mining is boring for discussions. There is no argument here. Yes. Most mutations are not helpful. That's a trivially known fact here. How in the world do you pull the individual quotes out of a reply as you did and place them in one reply? LOL For now, I'll just place yours in Green. "But you really only need rarely for some error, in transcription, from mutation, from some source to increase genetic information" This is clearly not the case. See: John Sanford. ...."The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’ "Again, I'd really need the larger context of a real argument to evaluate this. This is why quote mining is boring for discussions" Sir, that's why they're CITED. And this default Quote Mining.... it's sure better than having an Unsupported Conjecture free for all. Have you ever written a Science Research Paper or any research paper for that matter? Now obviously, using this medium, It would be quite impractical to say the least to provide a detailed rebuttal to each of your assertions. So what I do is have quotes or snippets from the books/articles that I've read that directly refute or support claims. Case in point, if you would like to discover the absolute IMPOSSIBLE concept of MUTATIONS with New Information or evolution....Think on this for a moment then Pull up the CITED Reference just below it "Most DNA sequences are poly-functional and so must also be poly-constrained. This means that DNA sequences have meaning on several different levels (poly-functional) and each level of meaning limits possible future change (poly-constrained). For example, imagine a sentence which has a very specific message in its normal form but with an equally coherent message when read backwards. Now let’s suppose that it also has a third message when reading every other letter, and a fourth message when a simple encryption program is used to translate it. Such a message would be poly-functional and poly-constrained. We know that misspellings in a normal sentence will not normally improve the message, but at least this would be possible. However, a poly-constrained message is fascinating, in that it cannot be improved. It can only degenerate. Any misspellings which might possibly improve the normal sentence will be disruptive to the other levels of information. Any change at all will diminish total information with absolute certainty." John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun') Montañez, G.; Marks R.; Fernandez, J. & Sanford, J. (2013). Multiple overlapping genetic codes profoundly reduce the probability of beneficial mutation, In: Biological Information – New Perspectives (pp 139-167).

"Creationism seems to me to be defined by what it is NOT." Isn't it well defined in the first 2 Chapters of Genesis?....and then referenced repeatedly throughout Scripture? "Much effort is expended to attacking evolution and cosmology," Well these are masqueraded secularly as "science".... and most cases, MAN'S feeble attempt to explain away GOD: “Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.” (Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 317:1848–1850, 2007.) That statement is profound in that we can put a whole slew of so-called "Sciences" right in that category (evolution, paleontology, anthropology, et al) Evolution in my opinion is a "Just So" Story or Ad Hoc Fallacy. That is to say, whenever something is discovered it's molded to fit with the Paradigm seamlessly. Just Recovery Hypothesis after Recovery Hypothesis...rinse and repeat. A glaring example of this is Punctuated Equilibrium....well were not seeing what Darwin predicted; so lets add another theory to explain away that problem to somehow conform to the previous theory and everything is all better. "Yes, of course God is behind it all." Isn't he? There are only 2 choices as to HOW we are here: Random Chance "nature" or Intelligent Design "GOD". If you ascribe sentience and intelligence to Universe and "nature" is your choice, then you have three minor hurdles to negotiate; namely, Abiogenesis, the 1st/2nd Laws of Thermodynamics(1LOT/2LOT) "Pillars of Science", and Information: 1. Abiogenesis, the cornerstone/foundation of evolution, is IMPOSSIBLE by any "natural" process... denoted via 1LOT/2LOT, the Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry, Laws of Information and Specific Complexity. 2. Since 1LOT "Nature's Law" states that: Nature can not create or destroy Matter/Energy...it can only change form. And.... 2LOT "Nature's Law" states that: the Universe is inexorably moving to "Maximum Entropy" or "Heat Death"; therefore, the Universe had a Beginning. Consequently, with your choice "nature" you must believe that: The Universe has always existed (in Violation of The Second Law of Thermodynamics, 2LOT) The Universe created itself (in Violation of The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, 1LOT....from nothing, nothing comes) 3. Information (DNA): Since Matter (atoms/molecules) carry no Information intrinsically, You have to be able to explain "How Stupid Atoms Wrote Their Own Software." This isn't a case where we "don't have the answers yet" we do and in "natures" case these barriers are clearly insurmountable.

Well you have to understand What Mutations Are; and I disagree and here's why...... ‘Mutations are word-processing errors in the cell’s instruction manual. Mutations systematically destroy genetic information—even as word processing errors destroy written information. While there are some rare beneficial mutations (even as there are rare beneficial misspellings), bad mutations outnumber them—perhaps by a million to one. So even allowing for beneficial mutations, the net effect of mutation is overwhelmingly deleterious. The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’ John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun') This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.87-8 Left to itself, DNA undergoes, during its replications in the germinal cells, the mutations so often referred to in the body of this book. But error modifies what already exists, it does not create it. Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.168 The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila, is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles. Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253

I'm assuming you are talking to me? Well, I have no ill will towards alpha whatsoever. He has commented that he is a theistic evolutionist and has stated that evolution is a fact. I have a background in the sciences and first hand experiences with some of the material that I feel he has been mislead on. IMHO evolution is contradictory to the WORD of GOD according to Genesis and the Corinthians Passage I quoted to him on another thread and was merely backing up my assertions with cited references. "Is it nonChristian to believe in the Big Bang as well?.....Or the theory of relativity" That's not for me to Judge. "The unbeliever will be affected less by your creation arguments than by the Presence of Christ in your life." It's not my creation argument...it's GODS WORD. Point taken on "the Presence of Christ in your life"....was there something in my points that led you to believe otherwise? I did not mean it on a personal level with you. I was making a general observation based on my experience. I was not questioning your or Alpha's relationship to Christ. But my general fear that wanting to win the argument (not in this case) eclipses a more basic need. ok understand, and point well taken. My style is direct and to the point....and on a medium such as this it's real easy to miscontrue intent. There is no "winning"... there is only TRUTH. As mentioned, IMHO I feel his points and position on the matter of evolution and abiogenesis is scientifically untenable and I attempted to support my direct refutations with Cited Sources that clearly show this. Thanks for your input on the matter

I'm assuming you are talking to me? Well, I have no ill will towards alpha whatsoever. He has commented that he is a theistic evolutionist and has stated that evolution is a fact. I have a background in the sciences and first hand experiences with some of the material that I feel he has been mislead on. IMHO evolution is contradictory to the WORD of GOD according to Genesis and the Corinthians Passage I quoted to him on another thread and was merely backing up my assertions with cited references. "Is it nonChristian to believe in the Big Bang as well?.....Or the theory of relativity" That's not for me to Judge. "The unbeliever will be affected less by your creation arguments than by the Presence of Christ in your life." It's not my creation argument...it's GODS WORD. Point taken on "the Presence of Christ in your life"....was there something in my points that led you to believe otherwise?

What else is there besides Natural Selection with evolution? And.... "Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical......" Richard Lewontin It sure sounds like he's including the whole theory here. No? It also sounds like he's relating it to a Religion, which echoes.... "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000 This is quite Profound....... "Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity." Michael Ruse: Science, March 7 2003 p. 1524 "Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you’ve experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that’s true of me, and I think it’s true of a good many of you in here." Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London). Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981 The quote mining thing is peculiar. I'm not accusing you in particular, but it's something I've noticed creationists like to do for some reason. alright, there is more to evolution than natural selection, and how that is understood can be made more or less specific. My definition actually didn't specify how it happened, I merely stated common descent. Really ultimately I think nowadays all agree that evolution is about the statistics of genetic material. There are questions about the 'unit of selection', debates about punctuated equilibrium, the role of genetic drift, and so on. There is debate about specifics of evolution, and how to define natural selection and understand it is debated by people who see evolution as a biological fact about the world, and are trying to define the terms for the theory. Quote mining? Can you please define "Qoute Mining" and the implied derogatory slant along with it? It's called backing up assertions by documented "Cited" sources. How else, on this medium or any other for that matter, would you go about such a task other than to CITE sources? "There is debate about specifics of evolution, and how to define natural selection and understand it is debated by people who see evolution as a biological fact about the world" I would imagine after 150 years, evolutionists might have some idea what it IS Specifically to come to a conclusion that it's a biological fact. How can you come to a conclusion of fact without defining something very specifically? "Really ultimately I think nowadays all agree that evolution is about the statistics of genetic material." You have Genetic Variation and Mutations (Spelling errors in the Instruction Manual) and that's pretty much it. Genetic Drift, along with Mutations, is a losing Information process.

What else is there besides Natural Selection with evolution? And.... "Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical......" Richard Lewontin It sure sounds like he's including the whole theory here. No? It also sounds like he's relating it to a Religion, which echoes.... "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000 This is quite Profound....... "Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity." Michael Ruse: Science, March 7 2003 p. 1524 "Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you’ve experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that’s true of me, and I think it’s true of a good many of you in here." Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London). Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981

Again I disagree.... from the plain language from Dr. Kirschner and Dr. Skell. I don't know how you can reach any other conclusion. "and does not refute the notion that bacteria evolve resistance to our antibiotics--" Well that goes back to the definition of "evolved" and using it as "Change" way too ambiguous, scientifically speaking. Evolution clearly needs to show NEW INFORMATION, leading to Unequivocal New Organs and Organisms. ALL cases of Bacterial Resistance is either genetic variation and in some cases Mutations. But ALL that have been studied are LOSS of Information when it comes to Mutations, as I cited earlier. "Links" are "transitional forms", and I agree that's a dead end.

Hey Alpha, I just replied to you on a another thread (evolution as taught in schools). I'd be interested in your response when you get some time. So we're on the same sheet of music, can you please define the Theory of evolution? It appears there are more than a Baker's Dozen currently. Thanks Praise The LORD!! Sure, by evolution I mean that life on earth originated from some common ancestor. Thanks. I don't understand however....this is Diametrically Opposed to the clear teaching of the WORD of GOD. Also it's unfalsifiable.... Richard Lewontin (evolutionary biologist and leading 20th Century evolutionist) PhD Zoology Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University "Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything." Richard Lewontin “Testing the Theory of Natural Selection” : Nature; March 24, 1972 p.181

@alpha Sorry I don't yet know how to pull short quotes out of a reponse yet...and I don't want to pull your whole post. "make predictions that guided the creation of medicine and medical knowledge." Sir, I just provided direct refutation of evolution and medical science above. "I've stated this elsewhere, but there are no 'kinds' in biology." Of course not. And the whole Taxonomic Classification System is a man-made construct. But comparing the assertions of evolution in relation to the WORD of GOD... don't you have to look and understand the Standard you're measuring against? I think the Scripture below is pretty clear and most closely Identifies with the Family Taxonomic Group. No? .... (1 Corinthians 15:39) "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." Speciation isn't a question here and as I said is a Scientific Fact. It is also "Micro" evolution: Natural Selection + Genetic Variation = Biblical Kind or a Family Group. You're not getting "Macro" or changes from one Family to another from this equation. "People seem to have in mind gross, visible morphological changes, and those really do take a very long time on evolution to occur, for several reasons." I disagree and is borne out in the "Lack" of evidence as in NONE. The only way to confim this is the fossil evidence...... "Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record." (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of natural History) The Myths of Human Evolution (1982) p.45-46 "What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524. "New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps." Henry Gee PhD (Senior Editor, Nature) In Search of Deep Time (2001) p. 32

Hey Alpha, I just replied to you on a another thread (evolution as taught in schools). I'd be interested in your response when you get some time. So we're on the same sheet of music, can you please define the Theory of evolution? It appears there are more than a Baker's Dozen currently. Thanks Praise The LORD!!

This is clearly not the case..... "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Marc Kirschner (Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School) The Boston Globe, October 23, 2005 Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences) 'Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.' Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005 "Examining the major advances in biological knowledge, one fails to find any real connection between biological history and the experimental designs that have produced today's cornucopia of knowledge of how the great variety of living organisms perform their functions. It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers and other practitioners of biological science." Philip Skell PhD; The Dangers of overselling Evolution, February 23 2009 "The public should view with profound alarm this unnecessary and misguided reintroduction of speculative historical, philosophical and religious ideas into the realms of experimental science. Through the writings of neo-Darwinian biologists, they have subsumed many of the biological experimental discoveries of the 20th century. This is so despite the fact that those discoveries were neither predicted nor heuristically guided by evolutionary theory." Philip Skell PhD; The Dangers of overselling Evolution, February 23 2009 Bacterial Resistance..... ‘most cases’ antibiotic resistance results from selection of an existing genetic trait, especially those traits that are highly variable, such as the natural defences that all organisms possess. Palumbi, S.R., Evolution—humans as the world’s greatest evolutionary force, Science 293:1786–1790, 2001; p. 1787. Bacteria can become resistant as a result of mutations, but all of those studied so far are loss mutations. Probably the classic example is streptomycin and other mycin drugs that have been rendered ineffective by ribosome point mutations. Davies, L, Brzezinska, M. and Benveniste, R., R factors: biochemical mechanisms of resistance to amino glycoside antibiotics, Annals of the New York Academy of Science 182:226–233, 1971. Davies, J. and Nomura, M., The genetics of bacterial ribosomes, Annual Review of Genetics 6:203–234, 1972. This is also quite intersesting..... Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from members of the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the six strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which were developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used. Ed Struzik, Ancient bacteria revived, Sunday Herald (Calgary Alberta, Canada), 16 Sept. 1990 As for the "Micro" and "Macro" equivocation, it's like saying; (2 + 2 =4) is the same as (2 + 16 = 4) if you add Millions/billions of years: Be sure WHAT your definition of evolution is. Because to discredit the Holy Bible, you have to show change from Family Taxonomic Group or higher. To be clear.... Biblical "Kind" was coined 6000 years before the term "Species" and are two TOTALLY DIFFERENT TERMS. Biblical "Kind"-- is defined from: (1 Corinthians 15:39) "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." Do you see the Family Taxonomic Group in the above passage? "Species"-- A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. (This is 1 of 3 current definitions and around the 30th in the past 50 years) This equation is a Observable, Measurable, Repeatable, and is a Scientific FACT: 1. "Micro"-evolution: Biblical "KIND" Natural Selection + Genetic Variation = Biblical "Kind", This is (Humans: Tall/Short, Green Eyes/Blue Eyes, Dark Skin/Light Skin, Puerto Rican/ Greenland Eskimo ... Dogs: Big/Small, Short hair/Long hair, Boxer/Collie) THEY'RE STILL DOGS and HUMANS! This Equation is an Epic Fairytale with NO PROOF (ZERO). 2. "Macro"- evolution: "Bacteria to Boy Scout".... Natural Selection + Random Mutations + Billions of years = darwinian evolution If evolution is TRUE, then show 1 PROOF of this! You must show a Family Taxonomic Group or higher change to prove evolution and discredit the Biblical Account. And please, don't say because #1 is True then Ipso Facto #2 is True. These two equations are in completely different Universes and the only similarity... is that each equation starts with a "Natural Selection"....which by the way, was first Identified and Documented 27 years before origin of species by Edward Blyth (Creationist). It appears evolutionists are using the ole "Bait and Switch" technique. Taking "Micro"- evolution" which is Natural Selection and Genetic Variation and "Grandfathering" these into darwinian evolution or "Macro"-evolution"... in an attempt to feign credulity with the former without explaining the latter. There is a very significant distinction. “Micro"-evolution, by definition, is the same thing as genetic variation (the shuffling of pre-existing genetic information). It is both observable and observed, measurable and measured, repeatable and repeated—in short, it has been scientifically verified as a natural phenomenon. However, in every single case, the organism that has undergone the variation is the SAME KIND OF ORGANISM! “Macro"-evolution” or (Bacteria to Boy Scout) on the other hand, has not been verified as a natural phenomenon. It has not been observed, measured, or repeated. No natural mechanism has successfully been put forth as the means by which new and more complex genetic information is generated so as to result in unequivocally new traits, organs, and organisms. “Macro"-evolution is an entirely contrived notion, extrapolated, with no empirical basis, from “Micro"-evolution. The distinction is both precise and significant. To blur the distinction is to show contempt for empirical science and mix fact with fantasy. Therefore.....For neo darwinian evolution ("Macro"), you need millions of beneficial mutations over thousands of generations that also need to become fixated in the mean time overwhelming all the deleterious ones. You need NEW INFORMATION----- leading to unequivocal New Traits, Organs, and Organisms. The notion with Mutations of this nature and magnitude is preposterous, genetically speaking. Alpha, Hope you find this helpful in your quest for the TRUTH. Praise The LORD!!

Up to Four

Thanks OneLight

Newbie, first post Having somewhat of an issue embedding quotes from previous replies. It appears the "Quote Icons" ,under previous replies, are having their way with me @ the moment LOL. Any advice would be appreciated or point me to a location where posting tips/help is available for review. Thanks