God used Evolution to 'create' man

[omega2xx]

50 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

The oldest fossils on Earth are single cells.   So that's settled.

As usual you offer a dogmatic statement , offer no evidence and expect me to believe it.  You don't even  know what it was a cell of and you have no idea what it became or how it evolved into something more complex.  Evolution  originally said it was a simple cell, but DNA blew that guess our the water.

Natural selection is directly observed.  

As usual another dogmatic statement with no evidence,  Natural selection can' be proved.  Prove me wrong.

 

50 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Here's an interesting case...

Decades ago, some 4,000 elephants lived in Gorongosa, says Joyce Poole—an elephant behavior expert and National Geographic Explorer who studies the park’s pachyderms. But those numbers dwindled to triple digits following the civil war. New, as yet unpublished, research she’s compiled indicates that of the 200 known adult females, 51 percent of those that survived the war—animals 25 years or older—are tuskless. And 32 percent of the female elephants born since the war are tuskless.

A male elephant’s tusks are bigger and heavier than those of a female of the same age, says Poole, who serves as scientific director of a nonprofit called ElephantVoices. “But once there’s been heavy poaching pressure on a population, then the poachers start to focus on the older females as well,” she explains. “Over time, with the older age population, you start to get this really higher proportion of tuskless females.”

This tuskless trend isn’t limited to Mozambique, either. Other countries with a history of substantial ivory poaching also see similar shifts among female survivors and their daughters. In South Africa, the effect has been particularly extreme—fully 98 percent of the 174 females in Addo Elephant National Park were reportedly tuskless in the early 2000s.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/11/wildlife-watch-news-tuskless-elephants-behavior-change/

Even if all she observed is true and it probably is, it is not an example of evolution.  All of the animals she mentioned were ELEPHANTS.  It seems you do not even understand the basic theory of evolution---at some point an A becomes a B and a B becomes a C.  Elephants remaining elephants doe not fit the theory.  Not only that, her examples reject natural selection, which should have given the elephants tusks because tht woudl help them survive.

Sea fossils are much older than any land fossils.

 

First of all you cant prove that and even if it is true you can't show the transition from sea to land. That is so absurd that even cave men laugh at it.

 

   And as your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise shows, there is an entire series of transitional forms between fish and land animals.

 

You are wasting your time mentioning Kurt Wise to me.  There are far more creation scientist that say there are none.  If evolution was true there would be far more transitional fossils then fossils of separate and distinct species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

25 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

As usual you offer a dogmatic statement , offer no evidence and expect me to believe it.

The oldest fossils:

Although a claim in 2017 says that the oldest fossils come from rocks found in Canada, the stromatolites from Archaean rocks in Western Australia are widely accepted as the oldest-known fossils with strong evidence. Stromatolite fossils are distinctive and look like layered rock formation. They were formed by ancient blue-green algae known as cyanobacteria and the oldest stromatolites are estimated to be about 3.5 billion years old.

Most of the stromatolites found so far are old and dead, but in 1956 living stromatolites – which are extremely rare –  were Hamelin Pool in Western Australia. Hamelin Pool has the most abundant and diverse living stromatolites found anywhere in the world. The water in the area is twice the salinity of regular seawater, which allows cyanobacteria to thrive.

In early 2017, scientists found tubelike microscopic bacteria on hematite ore that are currently believed to be the oldest fossils in the world. The fossils are similar to those found at hydrothermal vents, where thriving biological communities exist. Though other scientists are skeptical about their claims, the scientists who found the fossils say they are at least 3.7 billion years old and may even be older than 4 billion years.

These scientists are hopeful that the new fossils will shed some insights into early life on Earth. If the fossils really are 4.2 billion years old this will provide evidence that life began quickly after the Earth’s oceans were formed.

http://www.oldest.org/animals/fossils/

The evidence for the ancient hydrothermal cells is becoming stronger, so it seems the oldest living things on Earth were single-celled organisms, up to 4 billion years old.

Natural selection is directly observed.  

31 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Natural selection can' be proved.  Prove me wrong.

When Alexander Flemming discovered penicillin, he predicted that overuse of antibiotics would cause natural selection to produce antibiotic-resistant bacteria.  As you know, that prediction has been repeatedly confirmed.

The "nylon bug" (bacteria that have evolved the ability to consume nylon oligomer) was produced by natural selection in the waste ponds of nylon factories.   The bacteria which had a frame-shift mutation that produced an enzyme capable of breaking down the nylon, were more fit for that environment than other bacteria, and quickly replaced the non-mutants.

n 1975, a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that could digest certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate. These substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935.

Further study^{[clarification needed (In the same paper, as implied by the position of the reference note?)]} revealed that the three enzymes that the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by any other bacteria, and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts.

There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. More importantly, the enzyme involved was produced by a mutation completely randomizing the original gene. Despite this, the new gene still had a novel, albeit weak, catalytic capacity. This is seen as a good example of how mutations easily can provide the raw material for evolution by natural selection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

 

38 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Even if all she observed is true and it probably is, it is not an example of evolution. 

It's an example of natural selection.   Natural selection is an agency of evolution.   Yes, there was a change in the allele frequencies of the elephant population, (which as you now realize is evolution) but the agency was natural selection.   Those with smaller or no tusks tended to survive, and thereby lived to reproduce.   If the selection continues, eventually elephants in these areas will not have the alleles for tusks.    Evolution within a taxon is sometimes called "microevolution."   Evolution that produces new species (such as the evolution of D. miranda from another species of insect)

http://www.drosophila.jp/jdd/class/070101/07010155.pdf

is macrovolution.

 

 

 

[one.opinion]

33 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I have tole you that defining a term is not the right question.

I honestly don't care if you think it is the right question or not, I want to know if you can define it in your own words. It appears as though you cannot.

29 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

The Bible says it did not.

You're missing the entire point. The Bible simply does not state that no physical death occurred before the fall. You can disprove my assertion by providing scriptural reference(s).

35 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I can easily google a definition and give  it to you.  Would that make you happy.

No, that's why I ask you to put it in your own words.

36 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I will give you my definition if you will give me your definition of a gene.

A gene is a sequence of DNA containing information for the production of a functional product. There is a LOT of nuance with a precise definition, but the definition I've provided works well in virtually all contexts.

41 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

The Bible says they  were the first 2.

The Bible refers to Eve as the mother of all living. Based on the context, this likely refers to a spiritual existence, rather than physical. The Bible does not explicitly say there were no other humans.

43 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

The Bible IMPLIES  the flood was global

That is arguable. The Bible is not definitive on whether the flood covered the entire planet.

43 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Prove they didn't or admit you can't.

Fossil records are reliable evidence that they did not. However, that isn't the point. The point is that the Bible never says that humans and dinosaurs were on the earth at the same time.

45 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

The Bible does not give the age of the earth, so I have never given its age.

I never claimed you did give an age. I said that YECs often argue points that they think are in the Bible, but actually aren't. You could be an atypical YEC in that regard.

47 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Can you prove it was billions  of years old?

Radiometric dating is a reliable method that indicates that it is.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

All you need is some basic knowledge of genetics o know that grass and wheat are different species  which is easily proved with DNA.

I would agree that domesticated wheat should be categorized as a separate species of plant. But what makes you believe that wheat could not be a separate species from "grass kind" as I asked earlier?

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

You can't even prove which one came first.

Wheat is domesticated, which means that the wild version of the plant came first.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Real science has PROVED there is more than one blood type and it can PROVE  what type you have.

I was referring to the use of science to prove concepts. There is observational proof that can be based on scientific procedures, like testing for blood type, but scientific proof is different. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/14/theres-no-such-thing-as-proof-in-the-scientific-world-theres-only-evidence/#7478ab755392)

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Talk is cheap.  Present the evidence and just one of the experiments

@The Barbarian gave you a great example of natural selection. When it was presented to you, you just claim "that is not an example of evolution". When an answer is provided for a question you have and you suddenly change your question, this is called "moving the goalposts" and is a poor way to have a debate.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Quote

There is not a creation science organization on the planet that denies natural selection.

If you was willing to look at the other side of the coin, you would find there are at least 2:  Institute for Creation Research(ICR) run by PHD's  in some field of science and Back to Genesis.

I took roughly 3 minutes to find an article from the ICR website that deals with natural selection. Here is a quote:

Quote

The article played on the false notion that creation scientists do not accept natural selection when it stated, “Creationism . . . rejects the scientific theories of natural selection and evolution.” Creationists do accept natural selection in principle, but maintain it has nothing to do with macroevolution.

Here is a link to the full text article - https://www.icr.org/article/tempest-dog-dish

I took another look at the Answers in Genesis website (there isn't a "Back to Genesis" organization). Here is what I found there:

Quote

From a creationist perspective natural selection is a process whereby organisms possessing specific characteristics (reflective of their genetic makeup) survive better than others in a given environment or under a given selective pressure (i.e., antibiotic resistance in bacteria).

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/

I repeat, there is not a creation science organization on the planet that denies natural selection.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

I will add there is not an evolution organization on the planet that can prove natural selection.

Even the YEC organizations know and freely admit that natural selection is a common feature we can see all around us today. Please please please take a break. If you want to continue arguing at some point in the future then, read A LOT. Then see if you can discuss with at least a little bit of knowledge to back you up.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

One final comment.  All of your comments about death, the flood, etc, I can't prove what I believe, I accept them  by faith alone. At the same time, whatever you believe about them you also can't prove.  You accept them by faith alone.  The only difference is I admit I can't , you will not.

I can prove that certain claims are not in the Bible. However, I never once claimed I could prove my beliefs. They are beliefs based on evidence, but they are still beliefs and not provable. This is one more thing you have completely wrong in this post.

[omega2xx]

45 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

The oldest fossils:

Although a claim in 2017 says that the oldest fossils come from rocks found in Canada, the stromatolites from Archaean rocks in Western Australia are widely accepted as the oldest-known fossils with strong evidence. Stromatolite fossils are distinctive and look like layered rock formation. They were formed by ancient blue-green algae known as cyanobacteria and the oldest stromatolites are estimated to be about 3.5 billion years old.

Most of the stromatolites found so far are old and dead, but in 1956 living stromatolites – which are extremely rare –  were Hamelin Pool in Western Australia. Hamelin Pool has the most abundant and diverse living stromatolites found anywhere in the world. The water in the area is twice the salinity of regular seawater, which allows cyanobacteria to thrive.

In early 2017, scientists found tubelike microscopic bacteria on hematite ore that are currently believed to be the oldest fossils in the world. The fossils are similar to those found at hydrothermal vents, where thriving biological communities exist. Though other scientists are skeptical about their claims, the scientists who found the fossils say they are at least 3.7 billion years old and may even be older than 4 billion years.

These scientists are hopeful that the new fossils will shed some insights into early life on Earth. If the fossils really are 4.2 billion years old this will provide evidence that life began quickly after the Earth’s oceans were formed.

http://www.oldest.org/animals/fossils/

The evidence for the ancient hydrothermal cells is becoming stronger, so it seems the oldest living things on Earth were single-celled organisms, up to 4 billion years old.

This is your problem, you take what someone  says, but does not include any real evidence.  The present no evidence that fossils originated from algae.  When they use words like "widely accepted," "currently believe" and "so it seems" indicates they don't really know.  Also all current dating methods except C 14 are based on assumptions that make the date older than it really is. Some scientist were said to be skeptical.  Why do  you not believe them?

Natural selection is directly observed.  

When Alexander Flemming discovered penicillin, he predicted that overuse of antibiotics would cause natural selection to produce antibiotic-resistant bacteria.  As you know, that prediction has been repeatedly confirmed.

That is not natural selection.  Some of  the bacteria must have been resistant to penicillin or that species would have become extinct.  Another possibility is some had a mutation that  made them resistant.  The  main problem with "natural selection" is that traits are determined by the gene pool of the parents.  The only thing that can alter the trait of a gene is a mutation, which is an unnatural event. 

The "nylon bug" (bacteria that have evolved the ability to consume nylon oligomer) was produced by natural selection in the waste ponds of nylon factories.   The bacteria which had a frame-shift mutation that produced an enzyme capable of breaking down the nylon, were more fit for that environment than other bacteria, and quickly replaced the non-mutants.

n 1975, a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that could digest certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate. These substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935.

Further study^{[clarification needed (In the same paper, as implied by the position of the reference note?)]} revealed that the three enzymes that the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by any other bacteria, and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts.

There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. More importantly, the enzyme involved was produced by a mutation completely randomizing the original gene. Despite this, the new gene still had a novel, albeit weak, catalytic capacity. This is seen as a good example of how mutations easily can provide the raw material for evolution by natural selection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

Mutations do not create a new gene.  They only alter the trait the kid would have gotten without the mutation.

 

 

It's an example of natural selection.   Natural selection is an agency of evolution.   Yes, there was a change in the allele frequencies of the elephant population, (which as you now realize is evolution) but the agency was natural selection.   Those with smaller or no tusks tended to survive, and thereby lived to reproduce.   If the selection continues, eventually elephants in these areas will not have the alleles for tusks.    Evolution within a taxon is sometimes called "microevolution."   Evolution that produces new species (such as the evolution of D. miranda from another species of insect)

http://www.drosophila.jp/jdd/class/070101/07010155.pdf

is macrovolution.

You don't seem to understand that evolution requires a change if the species.  The change in the allele did not cause the elephants to become something other than an elephant.  Mutations can only alter traits, not the species.

What about the elephants with no tusks?       Did they survive?  If not that directly refutes natural selection.

 

 

[omega2xx]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I honestly don't care if you think it is the right question or not, I want to know if you can define it in your own words. It appears as though you cannot.

I don't care if you don't care.  I have told you haw anyone  can google a definition, cut and paste it.   The only important thing is to know what mutations can do and not do.  Can you answer that?

 

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

You're missing the entire point. The Bible simply does not state that no physical death occurred before the fall. You can disprove my assertion by providing scriptural reference(s).

Agreed, so what you point?  

 

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

No, that's why I ask you to put it in your own words.

A gene is a sequence of DNA containing information for the production of a functional product. There is a LOT of nuance with a precise definition, but the definition I've provided works well in virtually all contexts.

I didn't ask you for a definition.  I ask you what they do.

 

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The Bible refers to Eve as the mother of all living. Based on the context, this likely refers to a spiritual existence, rather than physical.

The context does not likely refer to a spiritual existence.  For her to have children she had to have had a physical existence.

The Bible does not explicitly say there were no other humans.

OK, so what's your point.  It does not say the moon is not made of green cheese, but it isn't

 

 

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That is arguable. The Bible is not definitive on whether the flood covered the entire planet.

Yes it is. Gen 7:19 say the water prevailed more and more upon the earth so that all the high mountains under the heavens were covered.  That has to be more than local.  Then verse 20 say the water rose 15 cubits(22 1/2 feet and the mountains were covered.  If Mt Everest was covered, that would require more that a local flood.

Fossil records are reliable evidence that they did not. However, that isn't the point. The point is that the Bible never says that humans and dinosaurs were on the earth at the same time.

OK, so what your point?

I never claimed you did give an age. I said that YECs often argue points that they think are in the Bible, but actually aren't. You could be an atypical YEC in that regard.

OK, so what your point.  The age of the earth is irrelevant.  The only important thing is how it came into existence.  A question evolution can't answer.   Evolution can't prove it is 3-4 billion years old either.

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Radiometric dating is a reliable method that indicates that it is.

Yes it does but all dating except C 14 is based on several assumptions, that make the dates older than they actually are.

I would agree that domesticated wheat should be categorized as a separate species of plant. But what makes you believe that wheat could not be a separate species from "grass kind" as I asked earlier?

Wheat and all grasses are separate species. 

Wheat is domesticated, which means that the wild version of the plant came first.

You have no evidence what the first wheat was.  It doesn't matter which came first.  It is not evidence of evolution, but of a mutation.  You and Barbarian don' seem to realize evolution requires a change  of species.  Wheat remaining wheat does not qualify.

I was referring to the use of science to prove concepts. There is observational proof that can be based on scientific procedures, like testing for blood type, but scientific proof is different. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/14/theres-no-such-thing-as-proof-in-the-scientific-world-theres-only-evidence/#7478ab755392)

The ability to show what type blood is, not only can be proved, it can be observed and duplicated and it will come out the very same thing every time.  THAT IS PROOF.  Evidence PROVES the statement.

@The Barbarian gave you a great example of natural selection. When it was presented to you, you just claim "that is not an example of evolution". When an answer is provided for a question you have and you suddenly change your question, this is called "moving the goalposts" and is a poor way to have a debate.

I didn't change the question,.  As usual I ask for evidence instead of his dogmatic statement and he gave none.

A poorer way to have a debate is to make a dogmatic  statements and offer no support for them and expect the other person to believe it.

I took roughly 3 minutes to find an article from the ICR website that deals with natural selection. Here is a quote:

Here is a link to the full text article - https://www.icr.org/article/tempest-dog-dish

I took another look at the Answers in Genesis website (there isn't a "Back to Genesis" organization). Here is what I found there:

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/is-natural-selection-the-same-thing-as-evolution/

I repeat, there is not a creation science organization on the planet that denies natural selection.

Even the YEC organizations know and freely admit that natural selection is a common feature we can see all around us today. Please please please take a break. If you want to continue arguing at some point in the future then, read A LOT. Then see if you can discuss with at least a little bit of knowledge to back you up.

I am not interested in continuing to answer silly questions that have no point to them  I can support from Scripture What I believe and i can refute from Scripture anything you think is wrong or contradictory.

 

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I can prove that certain claims are not in the Bible.

Who cares?  It is no great feat to read a book and claim something some people believe is not in the book

You can'[t prove any claim I have made that  is in the Bible is   in the Bible.

 

However, I never once claimed I could prove my beliefs. They are beliefs based on evidence, but they are still beliefs and not provable. This is one more thing you have completely wrong in this post.

Evidence proves a belief.  No evidence, no assurance the belief  is true. You can't prove even one belief of evolution., especially the origin of life from dead elements.

 

I am going to go to ICR and see what they say about mutations and natural selection.  Then I will show you they do not believe either one is true and      they will give the science that supports their belie3f.

[one.opinion]

27 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I don't care if you don't care.  I have told you haw anyone  can google a definition, cut and paste it.   The only important thing is to know what mutations can do and not do.  Can you answer that?

Yes.

28 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Quote

You're missing the entire point. The Bible simply does not state that no physical death occurred before the fall. You can disprove my assertion by providing scriptural reference(s).

Agreed, so what you point?

My point is that there are arguments that YECs make that they believe are based on exactly what the Bible says, but on further analysis, they aren't.

31 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Quote

A gene is a sequence of DNA containing information for the production of a functional product. There is a LOT of nuance with a precise definition, but the definition I've provided works well in virtually all contexts.

I didn't ask you for a definition.  I ask you what they do.

Are you sure about that? Let's look and see... Turns out your direct quote was:

Quote

I will give you my definition if you will give me your definition of a gene.

You change your story with every single post. This makes having a conversation very difficult.

Not only did you very clearly ask for a definition of a gene, you also very clearly said you would give me a definition of a mutation in your own words. Now please do as you said you would. The time required to display your self-contradictions is time I really don't care to spend. If you are trying to frustrate me to the point that I just give up, you are definitely on the right track.

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Mutations do not create a new gene.  

New alleles, usually.   That's why evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time.   Every now and then, we do have a mutation that makes a new gene.   This is often done by mutations to non-coding DNA, that previously had no protein-coding function.   

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

You don't seem to understand that evolution requires a change if the species.

No.  Evolution requires a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.   Remember when I told you that not knowing what you were talking about, was holding you back?  Here's another time.

3 hours ago, omega2xx said:

The change in the allele did not cause the elephants to become something other than an elephant. 

It merely caused the population to evolve.  Remember what evolution is.   In biology, it's a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.   So elephants in these areas have evolved smaller tusks or no tusks at all.

There are, of course, examples of new species evolving, but that's less common.   But as you know, even most creationists now admit that new species, genera, and often families evolve.    But they say, that's "not real evolution."    In science it is.   Remember what the scientific definition is.

 

 

 

[dhchristian]

I Just watched a Movie called "Is Genesis History?" (Made in 2017) which raises some very good points on these topics. You can find it on YOUTUBE for free. I know it is from the YEC side of the debate, but it is well worth watching for any here who are on the fence. I Know the diehard evolutionists won't even give it a chance because they are pushing their paradigm, but those who are looking for some science behind YEC will find this movie fulfilling. Brings up many "anomalies" which evolutionists are unable to explain, and Old earth Geology cannot account for, But Genesis can, and does.  

[omega2xx]

15 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Yes.

???

My point is that there are arguments that YECs make that they believe are based on exactly what the Bible says, but on further analysis, they aren't.

Not they don't.  They are intelligent people, at least most of them.  They have a good reading comprehension.  They use the ages of the people listed in chapter 5 of Genesis to try and determine its age.  They don't say 10000 years they says about or not over.

 

15 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Are you sure about that? Let's look and see... Turns out your direct quote was:

You are right.  I am an  old geezer(87) and my memory is not what it use to be.

You change your story with every single post. This makes having a conversation very difficult.

No I don't.  I might change a comment or 2, but the the whole  story.  If the discussion becomes too difficult, put me on ignore.  If you think you will ever change my mind about evolution/creation, better pack a lunch,  It ain't gonna happen.  Before I was converted, at 45, I did not believe it was true, but since it is the only thing taught in public schools, I thought it might  be. When I became a Christian, i spent a lot of time looking at the other side of the discussion.  Mainly at ICR.  I found heir explanation of science was far more scientific.

BTW I did google "mutations ICR" and "natural selection ICR"  Their comments were far to  long to cut and paste, but you can find them the same way I did if you are really interested.

Not only did you very clearly ask for a definition of a gene, you also very clearly said you would give me a definition of a mutation in your own words. Now please do as you said you would. The time required to display your self-contradictions is time I really don't care to spend. If you are trying to frustrate me to the point that I just give up, you are definitely on the right track.

IMO giving a definition that is readily available on the internet is of little value.  I don' need to know the definition.  I only need to know what the term can do or not do.  So her is what I promise to do; I will put in my own words what the term can or can't do.  I will back up what I say with evidence or admit I accept what i believe by faith alone.  I expect you to do the same.

If I frustraite you, you have a solution.

Have a nice day

Peace and  joy

 

 

 

[omega2xx]

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

New alleles, usually.   That's why evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time.   Every now and then, we do have a mutation that makes a new gene.   This is often done by mutations to non-coding DNA, that previously had no protein-coding function.   

There is no change in allele frequency.  I don't even know what that means.  All  of the genes that will give the kid its traits are in the gene pool of the parents. 

No.  Evolution requires a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.   Remember when I told you that not knowing what you were talking about, was holding you back?  Here's another time.

It is not holding me back because it is false and you have  been completed indoctrinated in a THEORY that is not based on science.  Even if all you say is true it will not change the species.  Mutations only alter a trait, and that would not make a new species, and you can't give one example where it did.  The kid who became an albino, because the gene for skin color  in one or both parents, will not only remain the same species of its parents, it will reproduce "after its kind." If you think mutations are a mechanism for a change of species, you have been duped and need some basic education on the function of genes and he limits of mutations.

It merely caused the population to evolve.  Remember what evolution is.   In biology, it's a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.   So elephants in these areas have evolved smaller tusks or no tusks at all.

BUT THEY REMAINED  elephants.  Where 's the evolution?

There are, of course, examples of new species evolving, but that's less common.   But as you know, even most creationists now admit that new species, genera, and often families evolve.    But they say, that's "not real evolution."    In science it is.   Remember what the scientific definition is.

Most Christians do not believe  in any form of evolution and they say no such hing.  It is not in science, it is  only in evolution, and it there because it is necessary to try and support their non-scientific THEORY. 

peace and joy