one.opinion Posted December 23, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.08 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, omega2xx said: Then post where I made those statements and please include the page no. I already did and I doubt it would make much difference if I did pull those quotes out all over again. Doing that on my phone is more trouble than it is worth. 8 minutes ago, omega2xx said: When it comes to the Bible, I think we agree at least 95% of the time, maybe more Our main difference is the meaning of "after their kind." We can disagree on some interpretations as long as we agree it is all inspired by God and inerrant. I agree with this, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted December 23, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.08 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2019 10 minutes ago, Alive said: I don't see that the logic says this... Let me see if I can clarify. The insertion of a viral sequence may be a few hundred to a few thousand nucleotides of DNA inside a genome over 3,000,000,000 nucleotides long. The chances of one virus inserting into the exact same position in two very large genomes is virtually nil. The odds are pretty much the same as you and I both picking a number between one and three billion and having it be the exact same number. On top of that, the odds would be for a single viral insertion event. Thousands of these viral insertion points are shared between the human and chimp genomes. It seems much more plausible that the insertions occurred prior to the split in lineage between chimps and humans rather than coincidentally and independently in the two separate genomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 23, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2019 13 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: Out of the ground, not from nothing, as the modern doctrine of YE creationism would revise it. You have give me some food for thought. I don't think YE theology includes all life was ex nihilo. Even if cattle, creeping things and beast of the earth were not created ex nihilo, other things were.. The universe . man and sea monsters were. So while doctrine may be limited, it is not eliminated. MERRY CHRISTMAS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alive Posted December 23, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 22 Topic Count: 194 Topics Per Day: 0.11 Content Count: 11,054 Content Per Day: 6.45 Reputation: 9,018 Days Won: 36 Joined: 09/12/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/09/1956 Share Posted December 23, 2019 6 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Let me see if I can clarify. The insertion of a viral sequence may be a few hundred to a few thousand nucleotides of DNA inside a genome over 3,000,000,000 nucleotides long. The chances of one virus inserting into the exact same position in two very large genomes is virtually nil. The odds are pretty much the same as you and I both picking a number between one and three billion and having it be the exact same number. On top of that, the odds would be for a single viral insertion event. Thousands of these viral insertion points are shared between the human and chimp genomes. It seems much more plausible that the insertions occurred prior to the split in lineage between chimps and humans rather than coincidentally and independently in the two separate genomes. I think perhaps you misunderstand me. I don't believe we came from chimps...now consider again what I wrote. Your logic doesn't work in any case, whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 23, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2019 17 hours ago, The Barbarian said: 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. 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). What you call added info is only altering old info. For all you know, the immunity to malaria may have been dormant in the gene pool of the parents, But when the right combination came, the gene causing the immunity may have been dominant instead of recessive. Also becoming immune did not change the species. No change in species, not evolution. MERRY CHRISTMAS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 23, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2019 32 minutes ago, one.opinion said: That isn’t clear in the Bible, that is your own interpretation. While it may not be clear to you, it is perfectly clear to me, and what you think is only your interpretation. Since we can directly observe populations change over time, then it is abundantly clear that “after their kind” does not mean that populations of organisms cannot change. Actually we don't see populations changing, What we see is after their kind--Cats producing cats, whales producing whales, roses producing roses, etc. Your claim is not only unsubstantiated, it is completely refuted by direct observation. Not true. No one has ever seen a species produce a different species. For on thing your need to push the event back millions of years eliminates there being anyone there to witness it. Before you claim I haven’t provided evidence for this, I have - multiple times. I am just using my phone to write this response and am not inclined to post material I have already posted. Actually you haven't. You have presented what you consider evidence, but you have not shown the science that causes what you claim. MERRY CHRISTMAS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted December 23, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.08 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2019 18 minutes ago, Alive said: I don't believe we came from chimps...now consider again what I wrote. I don’t think we came from chimps, either. I think we share a common ancestor. Is this what you were referring to? ”I view this as that God is an efficient user of materials. I have a bunch of nuts and bolts and various nails, that I use to'construct' a variety of objects.” Is it your position that God caused thousands of viruses to insert into the exact same spot in both chimps and humans? If so, why do you think God made our genomes look exactly like we do share a common ancestor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alive Posted December 23, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 22 Topic Count: 194 Topics Per Day: 0.11 Content Count: 11,054 Content Per Day: 6.45 Reputation: 9,018 Days Won: 36 Joined: 09/12/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/09/1956 Share Posted December 23, 2019 1 minute ago, one.opinion said: I don’t think we came from chimps, either. I think we share a common ancestor. Is this what you were referring to? ”I view this as that God is an efficient user of materials. I have a bunch of nuts and bolts and various nails, that I use to'construct' a variety of objects.” Is it your position that God caused thousands of viruses to insert into the exact same spot in both chimps and humans? If so, why do you think God made our genomes look exactly like we do share a common ancestor? I don't know how many times I have to say it...I challenge the logic. Observing the one, doesn't mean the conclusion follows. This is very basic logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted December 23, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.08 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2019 4 minutes ago, omega2xx said: That isn’t clear in the Bible, that is your own interpretation. While it may not be clear to you, it is perfectly clear to me, and what you think is only your interpretation. You have your opinion and I have mine. However, it is a fact the the Bible does not state, or even imply, that populations of kinds cannot change. We have heaps of evidence that say populations do change over time, including direct observation. 7 minutes ago, omega2xx said: Not true. No one has ever seen a species produce a different species. You have been shown several times in this very thread that the generation of new species has indeed been observed. 9 minutes ago, omega2xx said: For on thing your need to push the event back millions of years eliminates there being anyone there to witness it. For many species, this is true, but there have been observed incidents of directly observed generation of new species. 10 minutes ago, omega2xx said: Actually you haven't. You have presented what you consider evidence, but you have not shown the science that causes what you claim. The Barbarian and I have both shown you evidence in multiple occasions. We cannot go over to your evidence and read it to you. You have somehow missed the evidence we have repeatedly provided. I’m done for the day, as I have important work to accomplish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted December 23, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.08 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2019 7 minutes ago, Alive said: I don't know how many times I have to say it...I challenge the logic. Sorry, but your cognitive math issues are not my problem. If you can’t see that odds of 1/3,000,000,000 times several thousand support a common ancestor, then I can’t do much further to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts