Are Fossils evidence of evolution ....or are the evidence of fossils

[one.opinion]

13 minutes ago, Sparks said:

It's not me who says so, it's HE that says so.

Nope, there is no verse in Genesis that says "Hey guys, this is NOT figurative". And even though a literal Adam and Eve are affirmed in many other parts of the Bible, the 144 hour creation period is not.

13 minutes ago, Sparks said:

So, which part do you think God was kidding about in Genesis? Is your god (small g) one that cannot handle what is claimed in Genesis?  Is he kind of limited like that?

Not in the slightest. He could have created everything in 144 hours, 144 seconds, or instantaneously. However, the evidence that He left us in His creation strongly suggests otherwise.

He made a simple point to ancient people without the knowledge available through modern scientific research the HE, and He alone, is Creator. This message was originally intended for people surrounded by cultures rampant with false idols. The message of God as Creator remains unchanged, even though our collective understanding of the natural world is far more advanced.

[Sparks]

46 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Nope, there is no verse in Genesis that says "Hey guys, this is NOT figurative". And even though a literal Adam and Eve are affirmed in many other parts of the Bible, the 144 hour creation period is not.

There is no reason to leave a note either way, but it's not figurative. There is scripture that says He created the animals, and let Adam name them.

In your storyline, we have to wait for Adam to evolve from a puddle, and then wait for each animal to evolve to name them. 

46 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Not in the slightest. He could have created everything in 144 hours, 144 seconds, or instantaneously. However, the evidence that He left us in His creation strongly suggests otherwise.

Glad you see this. 

46 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

He made a simple point to ancient people without the knowledge available through modern scientific research the HE, and He alone, is Creator. This message was originally intended for people surrounded by cultures rampant with false idols. The message of God as Creator remains unchanged, even though our collective understanding of the natural world is far more advanced.

Evolutionists start with the premise that there is no God, no magical powers, no creator, and then the ask the question, "How did all this get here?"

Then they make up theory, which is not evidence, but they present it like it is evidence.  We have no evidence for Darwinian Evolution. 

Can you give me an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

Don't worry, it's not a topic change.  You won't be able to answer, because there is none.  It's the same question someone asked Dawkins, and he could not answer.  Finally Dawkins asked that they turn off the camera while he thought a while.  The answer he later gave WAS NOT an example.

Embarrassing, isn't it?   Ubiquitous new information claimed by the theory, but no one can point ANY out.

[Guest kingdombrat]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

Sorry, for my denseness, but what do you mean by 'prominence'? Do you mean personal glory or fame of those studying these things?

I mean, whenever we are asked a question, one that especially is debatable that has definite opposing views, our initial response is based from our prominent source of reliability.   If a topic like Evolution, that from many views places God vs Science, the source one relies upon [God's Word] [Scientific observation and discovery] is their place of prominence.

[one.opinion]

59 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Can you give me an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

Don't worry, it's not a topic change.

That's ok, I've given up trying to remain on topic.

This all depends on how you define "information", but I can give you multiple examples. Any mutation that leads to the formation of a new allele and altered protein adds to the information of a cell. An example would be the HbS mutation of the hemoglobin beta gene. This mutation can lead to cell sickling, but also contributes to malaria resistance. So for much of human history heterozygotes for the normal hemoglobin beta allele and beta allele had greater survivorship in tropical areas where malaria is most common. 

Another way to increase information is through the process of duplication and divergence. Duplications of sections of chromosomes is a common event and can sometimes include entire genes and their regulatory sequences. Once a duplicate, functional version of a gene is generated, the selective pressure minimizing mutational alteration of the sequence is relaxed. As a result, a similar gene with slightly different function is generated, thus increasing the information in the genome. We can see this in the hemoglobin gene clusters (both alpha and beta) once again, but perhaps a better example are the genes that encode the opsin proteins sensitive to red and green wavelengths. These are located near one end of the X-chromosome. Duplications have been observed to occur here with some frequency, so we have direct evidence of gene duplication.  Additionally, point mutations and mutations due to unequal crossing over also occur in these regions, so the divergence is also documented.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

It's the same question someone asked Dawkins, and he could not answer.  Finally Dawkins asked that they turn off the camera while he thought a while.  The answer he later gave WAS NOT an example.

Embarrassing, isn't it?

If this really happened to Dawkins, I'm sure it would be embarrassing. However, I'm not embarrassed in the least to have given you two known examples of genomic events that have led to increased genomic information, but I'm happy to provide more, if you wish.

[Sparks]

18 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

That's ok, I've given up trying to remain on topic.

This all depends on how you define "information", but I can give you multiple examples.

New information means breaking Mendel's law of Genetics, to see new 'code' that might make wings on a horse, possible.  No such DNA code is there today.   That's the funny thing, we never see new information, ever.

Now a guy named Lensky has been trying for macroevolution since about 1988 (that's information above species to make a new kind, despite Wikipedia's definition of time).  He finally got some e. coli to grow on citrate, and claimed it was macro (new code), but it was actually micro.  The e. coli had simply flipped existing data (epigenetic switches).

I do see a lot of mistakes of scientists claiming micro as macro.  Micro-evolution is real by the way, but we never ever see macro.  You were describing micro in your prior post, above.

Using the word CHRISTMAS, you cannot spell XEROX.  You are missing characters to do that.  Same problem with wing code, that both parents would have to inherit from their parents.

18 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

If this really happened to Dawkins, I'm sure it would be embarrassing.

It happened.

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, Sparks said:

New information means breaking Mendel's law of Genetics, to see new 'code' that might make wings on a horse, possible.  No such DNA code is there today.

So you have completely ignored the evidence that contradicts your claim. 100% expected.

What about a single mutation that causes legs to grow out of an animal's head, would that qualify under your oddly specific definition of what "new information" might be?

3 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Now a guy named Lensky has been trying for macroevolution since about 1988

Nope, Lenski's LTEE keeps extremely uniform conditions just to observe what changes randomly occur without selective pressure. He hasn't been "trying for macroevolution" at all.

4 minutes ago, Sparks said:

He finally got some e. coli to grow on citrate, and claimed it was macro (new code), but it was actually micro.  The e. coli had simply flipped existing data (epigenetic switches).

First, Lenski made no such claim.

Second, for the record, E. coli has the genes for metabolizing citrate, but it typically only does so under anaerobic conditions. Mutations in the regulatory sequences allowed the citrate utilization to occur under aerobic conditions. This was a surprising result, but no scientists argued that it was any sort of "macroevolution".

By the way, the changes were indeed genetic and not epigenetic (which means "outside of changes to DNA"). You might want to learn what terms mean before you try randomly using them.

[Sparks]

Just now, one.opinion said:

What about a single mutation that causes legs to grow out of an animal's head, would that qualify under your oddly specific definition of what "new information" might be?

Nope.  That's a replication error of the same data set.

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

First, Lenski made no such claim.

Sure he did.  It was about the 30,000 generation.

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Second, for the record, E. coli has the genes for metabolizing citrate, but it typically only does so under anaerobic conditions. Mutations in the regulatory sequences allowed the citrate utilization to occur under aerobic conditions. This was a surprising result, but no scientists argued that it was any sort of "macroevolution".

Sure they did, but they were mistaken.

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

By the way, the changes were indeed genetic and not epigenetic (which means "outside of changes to DNA"). You might want to learn what terms mean before you try randomly using them.

It was epigenetic switches that were flipped.  The DNA was identical, as they were originally cloned.  So, I guess I do know huh?

 

[one.opinion]

5 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Sure he did.  It was about the 30,000 generation.

Again, if you could back up your claims with evidence, there is a chance I would take your arguments more seriously. "Sure he did" is proof of absolutely nothing.

[one.opinion]

6 minutes ago, Sparks said:

It was epigenetic switches that were flipped.  The DNA was identical, as they were originally cloned.  So, I guess I do know huh?

No, the DNA was not identical. As I told you previously, there were mutations within the regulatory regions. So you don't know, yet somehow think you do. Sad.

[The Barbarian]

31 minutes ago, Sparks said:

New information means breaking Mendel's law of Genetics, to see new 'code' that might make wings on a horse, possible.  No such DNA code is there today.   That's the funny thing, we never see new information, ever.

You've been badly misled.    Perhaps you don't know how "information" is calculated.  How do you think the math works for this?

Population geneticists do this regularly.   But show us your math, proving that new information can never appear in living things.   What do you have?

If you don't know, I'll show you how it works.    But first show us how it works your way.