God used Evolution to 'create' man

[The Barbarian]

You're wrong about that.   Every new mutation in a population adds information to it.   The formula for information in genetics, like everything else, is shown below  the information (H) is found by multiplying the frequency of every allele for that gene by the log of the frequency of that allele, and summing all the products and multiplying it by -1. 

See why this is so:

https://towardsdatascience.com/the-intuition-behind-shannons-entropy-e74820fe9800

So, for example, if we have a gene in population, with two alleles, each with a frequency of 0.5, the frequency is about 0.301.    Suppose a new mutation occurs and it eventually results in all three having a frequency of about 1/3, then the information will be about 0.477.    I set the numbers so the math would be relatively easy for you, but feel free to change them; you'll see the same thing; a new mutation always increases information in a population.

See above.   I just showed you were a single mutation did exactly that.  No point in denial.

See above. 0.477 is greater than 0.301.   

This is a complete mystery to you, because you don't understand what "information" means, or how genetics works.  

 

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Why don't you tell me what new mutations add to the offspring. 

Information.   I just showed you.    You had the misconception that mutations don't add information.    And as you now realize, they do.  

An example would be hemoglobin C.    A recent mutation of human hemoglobin produced a new allele.   As you see in the example above, a new mutation in a population increases information.    In this case, the mutation provides good immunity to malaria, without the serious health consequences people have when they have two copies of hemoglobin S.    Hemoglobin S also give immunity to malaria, but it tends to kill homozygotes before they can reproduce.   So we now see the HbC allele increasing in frequency in areas where malaria is endemic, at the expense of HbS and Hb(normal).

 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

What kind of evidence could they even produce to support that anyway?

There has been a lot of research performed on the potential self-assembly of simple cell components like RNA molecules or cell membranes. A key find would be a full-length, self-replicating RNA molecule (RNA can serve both catalytic and replicative functions, unlike DNA). Random processes have generated RNA molecules in the lab that can partially replicate, but nothing that can entirely replicate itself.

1 hour ago, Prodigal Son said:

C'mon mate Im sure you said it was 90% probable earlier. Now your certain.

No, you are missing something key. Evolution, or heritable change over time, is directly observed. Earlier, you asked about the probability that all life evolved from a single cell. Evolution is 100% certain. Some of the implications of evolution, like a universal common ancestor are less than 100% certain.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

I said "Science basically says that all of life evolved from a single cell ancestor which spontaneously appeared without God. Why don't you believe this?"

No, it doesn't.  Darwin, for example:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. "

Charles Darwin, last sentence from On the Origin of Species, 1872

2 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

But then u said 

Common descent of all living things on Earth is taught as a finding of the theory

2 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

Which is basically what I said. Instead of answering my question your just nit picking little details.

If you think the question of whether or not God created it so, is a "nit  picking little detail", then we've located the problem.   As you see, common descent is a consequence of evolution, but it in no way denies that God created the universe to be so.

2 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

There are no atheists here

I've caught a good number of atheists, posing as YE creationists, espousing ideas even organizations like Answers in Genesis won't touch.   They do it to make theists look like idiots.  Some of them have gotten very subtle.  So you don't really know.   And there are certainly some creationists here, with very mistaken ideas about biology; hopefully, they'll take the time to look up for themselves, some of the information posted here, and learn about it.

2 hours ago, Prodigal Son said:

True. What kind of evidence could they even produce to support that anyway?

For the formation of the first cell?     The most persuasive evidence I know is easy; the one cell structure absolutely necessary for cellular life, is also the simplest and self-organizing structure.  See the diagram for cell membranes.   A very simple bilipid structure that self-organizes and spontaneously forms enclosed vesicles.  

There's a lot more, but of course, evolution would work just as it does now, if God chose to do what Darwin suggested, and just poof the first cells into existence.   If you're interested in abiogenesis, which is not about evolution,we could start another thread.

 

[omega2xx]

19 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Feel free to supply evidence for those two points I've asked you about (two days ago now). As a reminder, you were going to supply evidence that there are YEC scientists that deny speciation. You were also going to show me where the Bible says that kinds could not change over time.

I haven't made such claims. I don't know if the  scientist I rely on are YE or not and I have not said they deny speciation.  I said they deny speciation results in a new species.  The important thing is not how old the earth is, but how it got here. 

I also didn't say the Bible  doesn't say kinds can't change over time.  You said the Bible does not say kinds can't change over time and I said it also doesn't say they can.

MERRY CHRSTMAS

 

 

 

19 hours ago, one.opinion said:

 

 

 

 

[omega2xx]

19 hours ago, one.opinion said:

When excessively inbred, some dogs are unable to reproduce at all. That is not what we are talking about. Dogs and breed with other dogs. Dogs can even breed with wolves. However, dogs cannot breed with foxes (another canid). Using reproductive incompatibility as a measuring stick, dogs and foxes are different species, even though they still look rather similar.

You are missing the point.  What dogs can and can't breed with is relevant.  It is known that too much interbreeding results in the dog becoming sterile and we don't consider that  new species.  Why not?

If I provide evidence with links, you don't follow them. When I provide evidence with my own explanations, you ignore it. You are predisposed to reject evidence contrary to your opinion. Do you remember saying "They don;'t have any real evidence either", before any evidence was presented? How would you possibly know the future to see what would be presented as evidence? My conclusion (and you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to make this conclusion) is that you really aren't interested in looking at the evidence.

I have heard YEC scientists state that there is no amount of evidence that would change their views.

Where have you heard that? 

I'm ok with this since they are being honest about their position. You hold the same position, but without actually admitting it.

I do not hold that position and neither do they in respect to speciation.  You seem to think because he accept spciation, they accept it results in a new species.  They do not.

Alright, to avoid confusion after I present evidence for natural selection, let me make sure I am understanding you correctly. Are you stating that natural selection does not exist? Also, could you explain natural selection in your own words so we can see whether I can provide evidence for it?

No.  You said there is evidence for natural selection.  If you do that, which you can't, I will answer your question.

You are contradicting yourself. Speciation, by definition, causes new species. Remember, these new species do not need to be obviously different in their traits in order to be new species.

That depends on if the definition is correct.  Obviously it isn't.   A new species by definition would have go be obviously different

This is what you have said.

Why do you keep accusing me of saying thins I have not said?

Now back it up. You have not shown that creations scientists deny speciation or any other convolution that you have claimed. You want others to show you evidence you either won't look at or consider, and don't supply evidence of your own - all while pretending you do.

Another example of you accusing me of saying something I didn't say.  IMO, you are beating around the bush to  keep from doing what you said you would do---provide evidence for natural selection.

Let's review the evidence again.

You are clearly stating that there is something in the Bible that states that a kind cannot change over time.

I have NEVER  said that. Quit beating around the bush with false accusations.  You said you would present the evidence for natural selection.  Do the Nike thing---just do it.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

 

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by omega2xx

[dhchristian]

15 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Honestly, please describe scientifically why you evolution is false, despite the fact that we can observe it directly. Evolution is heritable change in populations over time, and it is an observed fact. Care to try to explain why it is false science? Or would you like me to help you articulate your objections more accurately?

Evolution states that Monkeys become man which is an impossibility genetically as only 2% of the genome of humans apes are the same, so evolutionary science calls the other 98% Junk DNA... Which is to say Evolution is nothing but Junk Science.

Whenever there is a debate about evolution, the Darwinians always make the claim that “99% of the genetic matter of apes and humans is identical.”

 

That sounds pretty convincing but they never tell you that they are only referring to just 2% of the DNA and their comparison does not include the “junk DNA” that makes up 98% of the human chromosomes. 

 

Darwinians have to exclude “junk DNA” from their DNA comparison because ape and human “junk DNA” are so different there isn't even a way to compare the two.

 

If you include all 100% of the DNA, and not just 2%, then ape and human DNA are so different that it is inconceivable for humans to have evolved from apes. 

 

For this reason, the Darwinians pulled a fast one and created the phony concept of “junk DNA.”  Darwinians labeled 98% of human DNA as “junk DNA” and claimed it was useless junk and should be ignored in any comparison of ape and human DNA.

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/junk_dna_standalone.php

 

I Posted this link earlier but I doubt you read it... When You want to discuss real science We will have real discussions but for now you are propagating the Junk science of evolution, which denies the Almighty God. Real Science is Mixing two elements together to make another, repeatable and provable in a Lab setting. Junk Science (Alchemy, Witchcraft and the like) are not, which is all Evolution is. Sorry to burst your Bubble of Glorified evolutionary science, it is nothing more than the imaginary frame work which denies the Creator God. TRUE SCIENCE Has been corrupted by and taken over by Witches, casting the Spell of Darwin over their science. You can scarcely watch a TV show on science without the Agenda of billions of years being propagandized on them over an over again and if you repeat a lie often enough people will begin to believe it, as the Nazi Propaganda minister was keen to observe.

  

[omega2xx]

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No, it says, Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

You  are still ignoring v25 which tells how the earth brought the forth---GOD MADE THEM.  The Gen 2:19 tells us what He madd the of---OUT OF THE GROUND.

As you see,God rules out your new doctrine of "life ex nihilo."   He says the earth brought forth life, as He intended.    Not from nothing, from the earth.

You keep ignoring the source of the power that made them.  It is perfectly clear from Gen 1:25---GOD MADE THEM;  and 2:19---THE LORD GOD FORMED THEM OUT OF THE GROUND.

  To attribute the origin of life to that which is dead is absurd.  A proper understand of those verse, which you donl hve, keeps ex nihilo in tact.

Sorry, no bunny trails; we're talking about the creation of life..   As you now realize, your new doctrine of "life ex nihilo" is ruled out by God's word.

What I realize is that you do not understand the verses we have been discussing.  You won't answer that question, because if you do, you will have to admit ex nihilo is true.

God says otherwise.   He says the earth brought forth living things.   I realize that's not consistent with your new doctrines, but you'll have to take it up with Him, not me.

It is not my doctrine, it is the ole one I accept as being true.  Yours is the new doctrine, and it is a false one.  Meditate on Mt 7:15 and maybe you will find the truth.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

 

[one.opinion]

40 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I haven't made such claims. I don't know if the  scientist I rely on are YE or not and I have not said they deny speciation.  I said they deny speciation results in a new species.  The important thing is not how old the earth is, but how it got here. 

I used direct quotes to avoid any confusion. You made the claims and cannot back them up. If you would just admit a mistake, it wouldn’t be a big deal. However, backtracking and saying you didn’t make the claim makes you look like a politician. The same holds true for the second claim I asked you to support.

I know it goes back a few days, but my original point was that you repeatedly ask for evidence to back up claims, yet you have made dozens of assertions that you never back up with evidence. This double-standard is not a good way to conduct meaningful dialogue. That is one of the clues I use that tells me you really aren’t interested in considering anything you don’t already believe.

Despite all that, I value your persistence and your determination to follow the Bible to the best of your understanding, and I value you as a brother in Christ.

A very Merry Christmas to you, as well!

[dhchristian]

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

YEC is was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the 20th century.   And you might want to be a little careful about calling Christians "deists."   For that matter, I'm pretty sure it's a violation of the rules to call others liars here.  

Use some restraint; it would make you more credible.

Was Moses a Young earth creationist? How about King David? Or Jesus and the Apostles? You see your claim makes no sense logically that YEC was a Modern Invention. Evolution is a "Modern Invention" however. 

Exposing the Deism of one's theology would fall under the category of reproving and rebuking those who call themselves Christians. We Are expressly told in scripture to contend for the faith. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 1:3)

Contending for the faith consists of exposing the lies and heresies that have been mingled into the church, and theistic evolution and the compromise it undertakes being a Deistic compromise. This is simple observation of the facts here, of which both of you are in DENIAL of, that theistic Evolution is nothing more than Deism in disguise. It denies an Omnipotent God who is capable of creating the earth and everything in it in six literal days, exactly as he inspired Moses via the Holy Ghost to write down in the inspired Word of God. You are doing nothing more than denying the Word of God and the Testimony of Jesus.... Partial unbelief.   

[one.opinion]

10 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Evolution states that Monkeys become man which is an impossibility genetically as only 2% of the genome of humans apes are the same

This assertion is completely false. You could not back that claim up no matter how thoroughly you search the internet. You just really don’t care about making false statements, do you? This is odd behavior for someone that enjoys pointing out flaws in other followers of Christ. 
 

Address this false claim first, then I can move on to the rest of your post.