God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Actually you need to show  how mutations produce new alleles.

This is going to require me to teach you about DNA, mutations, and alleles. Are you willing to learn?

[omega2xx]

16 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Since it could be a species, or a genus, or a family, or an order, it really is not scientifically functional. And there is no Biblical interpretation we can rely on that tells us what a min actually is.

Of course there is if one is willing to use just a bit of logic.  All we need to do is look at what is PROVED thousands of times every day since lie began.  It is explained quite well in "after their kind."  Since life began we have SEEN that a species always reproduces the exact same species it is, and this FACT can't be falsified.  Evolution OTOH must push a change of species way back into the past which no one can see.

Did they not teach you that proven truths do not change?

No, there isn't. The concept of species is something Linnaeus introduced thousands of years after the recording of the Genesis account.

Linnaeus is right.  The concept of species is valid.  You have no evidenced that kind does not refer to species. 

I did. As usual, you ignored it.

No you didn't.  All you did was affirm the don't know what constitutes real evidence.

Sometimes, natural events occur that we really can't explain. However, natural selection of the rock pocket mice is one of these events that can be explained. At some point in the past, a mutation occurred that allowed darker fur. This darker fur allowed the mice to hide better on dark rocks, which exist in relatively small pockets spread across the American Southwest and into Mexico. These darker fur mice became the predominant mice in populations on dark rocks, while most of the lighter colored mice stayed on the lighter-colored rocks, where they were able to hide better. This is an obvious explanation of how this happened. Researchers have been able to identify the specific mutations involved in generating the darker fur. This example of natural selection is an open-and-shut case.

Even if that was true, and it certainly can't be proved, it might allow the survival of the mice, but it certainly did not result in a change of species, as you have just admitted.  What happened can easily be explained by the  gene for darker fur becoming dominant instead of recessive.

Love, peace, joy

 

[omega2xx]

17 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This is going to require me to teach you about DNA, mutations, and alleles. Are you willing to learn?

Not from one who does not understand any of The subjects you just mentioned.  Would you like me to teach you about them? I understand them better than you do.

Love, peace joy

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Of course there is if one is willing to use just a bit of logic. 

Since YEC scientists use "min" in 4 different contexts, there really isn't a useful scientific use of the term. And I keep saying it because you keep ignoring it, the Bible doesn't tell us what a "min" is.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Since life began we have SEEN that a species always reproduces the exact same species it is

Usually, yes. You have also been shown specific example of when this did not happen. Mistakes in the generation of gametes can result in progeny that are no longer reproductively compatible with the rest of the population - thus, new species.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

The concept of species is valid.  You have no evidenced that kind does not refer to species. 

You have seen from YEC scientists that you have quoted that "min" sometimes must refer to other levels of taxonomy, and not just species. "Min" can mean species, or it may not, just depending on the context.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

All you did was affirm the don't know what constitutes real evidence.

I showed you real evidence of natural selection and evolution. I cannot force you to think about the evidence (it is quite clear you don't like to do that), let alone accept the evidence.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

Even if that was true, and it certainly can't be proved

The evolution and natural selection of the rock pocket mice is true as indicated by the evidence.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

but it certainly did not result in a change of species

I never claimed it resulted in a change of species. I said it was evidence of evolution (heritable change in a population over time) and natural selection - both processes you inexplicably still deny.

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

What happened can easily be explained by the  gene for darker fur becoming dominant instead of recessive.

Alleles of genes are dominant or recessive (and can have other characteristics), but genes themselves do not. Additionally, alleles cannot switch from recessive to dominant, or vice versa. You have so much to learn. Do you want to give learning a try?

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Not from one who does not understand any of The subjects you just mentioned.  Would you like me to teach you about them? I understand them better than you do.

Oh goodness...  I would love for you to explain to me what I don't understand about genetics. Can you start by explaining the difference between a gene and an allele?

[omega2xx]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Since YEC scientists use "min" in 4 different contexts, there really isn't a useful scientific use of the term. And I keep saying it because you keep ignoring it, the Bible doesn't tell us what a "min" is.

No, translators use min in 4 different contexts.  That is because it can have 4 different meanings. Creation scientists accept how the translators use the word because they accept the expertise of those who know the language better than they do and also better than you do. The experts in Hebrew who translate the Bible tell us that in the creation account min means species, because that is what we see thousands of times every day.

Usually, yes. You have also been shown specific example of when this did not happen. Mistakes in the generation of gametes can result in progeny that are no longer reproductively compatible with the rest of the population - thus, new species.

It is not a new species. The inability to reproduces does not constitute a new species.

You have seen from YEC scientists that you have quoted that "min" sometimes must refer to other levels of taxonomy, and not just species. "Min" can mean species, or it may not, just depending on the context.

Since it can mean species, why are you not allowing it when it is obvious it means species?  The context in Gen 1:12,21,24 & 25 requires min to be "species,  more than any of the other possible translations.  Why do you keep referring to YE scientists ?  The age of the earth has nothing to do with genetic truths.  I haven't quoted any YE scientists , so you are just trying to make like i should agree with what they say.

I showed you real evidence of natural selection and evolution. I cannot force you to think about the evidence (it is quite clear you don't like to do that), let alone accept the evidence.

And I showed you where what you said was not evidence.

The evolution and natural selection of the rock pocket mice is true as indicated by the evidence.

You don'[t eve understand your own comment.  The mice did not change species, they only changed a trait, that could have been cause be the gene pool of the parents.  The species did not change so there was no evolution. 

I never claimed it resulted in a change of species. I said it was evidence of evolution (heritable change in a population over time) and natural selection - both processes you inexplicably still deny.

Do you really not understand that evolution requires a change of species,  not a change of a trait, which can be explained by other genetic truths, that I explained to you and you have not refuted?

Alleles of genes are dominant or recessive (and can have other characteristics), but genes themselves do not. Additionally, alleles cannot switch from recessive to dominant, or vice versa. You have so much to learn. Do you want to give learning a try?

If you don't understand that in a gene po9ol, a gene in one marriage a gene can switch from dominant to recessive or from recessive to dominant, you have not learned anything.  As I said before I can't learn from someone who does not understand the terms.

Love, peace, joy

 

[omega2xx]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Oh goodness...  I would love for you to explain to me what I don't understand about genetics. Can you start by explaining the difference between a gene and an allele?

The problem is not defining terms,  it is proving what you say, and I know you think you have but you haven't.

I will give you another example of evolution nonsense.  Explain how the legs of a and animal can become the fins of a sea animal.

Love. peace, joy

[one.opinion]

6 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

The problem is not defining terms

I didn't ask for a definition. Try to read what I wrote again using comprehension skills: "Can you start by explaining the difference between a gene and an allele?"

For months, you have repeatedly misused terms and made ridiculous statements. I suspect this is because you have no idea what you are talking about. You claim to know what genes and alleles are and what they can and cannot do, but you are clueless about what these foundational scientific terms actually mean.

Try to prove me wrong and give me a simple explanation for the difference between a gene and allele. I'm not asking you this out of malicious intent, but I hope (against all odds) to bring you face-to-face with the fact that you really don't know what you are talking about. Once you can admit what you don't know, you can actually start to learn something. Go ahead, give it a shot.

 

[The Barbarian]

Seems like it would be easy to explain the difference between "gene" and "allele."  I've discussed the difference here several times.  And yet, Omega seems unable to understand it.

 

[omega2xx]

19 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I didn't ask for a definition. Try to read what I wrote again using comprehension skills: "Can you start by explaining the difference between a gene and an allele?"

For months, you have repeatedly misused terms and made ridiculous statements. I suspect this is because you have no idea what you are talking about. You claim to know what genes and alleles are and what they can and cannot do, but you are clueless about what these foundational scientific terms actually mean.

Try to prove me wrong and give me a simple explanation for the difference between a gene and allele. I'm not asking you this out of malicious intent, but I hope (against all odds) to bring you face-to-face with the fact that you really don't know what you are talking about. Once you can admit what you don't know, you can actually start to learn something. Go ahead, give it a shot.

Amusing.  If someone rejects what you believe, they don't know what they are talking about .  However there are Christian scientists better qualified than you are who also reject your evolution theology.  You give these terms abilities they don't have.  What I say is not as ridiculous as you thinking there is a way the leg of a land animal can become the fin of a sea animal.  It seems you just ignored  my request for you to prove HOW that is possible.

The problem is not defining he terms.  The problem is YOU proving what you say they do.  You claim they do things I say they are not capable of doing. 

You define them and I will tell you if you are right.

Love, peace, joy