How mutation adds information to a population genome

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

That's why evolutionists have now been promoting the Panspermia nonsense...because those who are honest about the facts have come out and confessed that life could not have started upon the earth by random chance happenings naturalistically. 

Remember when I told you that not knowing what evolution is, was a problem for you?  It just bit you again.

Even Darwin just assumed that God created life at the beginning:

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 of On the Origin of Species

Evolution is not about the origin of life.   Maybe you should go and learn what evolutionary theory actually says?

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

Remember the old adage? Evolution must be able to account for everything in the biological world, or it can't account for anything.

Sorry, that's wrong.   Evolution only has to account for the way allele frequencies change in a population. 

Theories are accountable only for their predictions.    Which of Darwin's four points do you think has been refuted?  Be specific.

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

Most Christians don't believe what you are selling

Well, that's a testable claim.

Slightly more than half of all Christians are Roman Catholics, whose doctrines allow for the fact of evolution.    The next largest group are the Eastern Orthodox churches, which also allow for the fact of evolution.   Then there are Protestants.   Anglicans accept that evolution is consistent with Christian faith, as do almost all Lutheran groups.  And so do many others.

So you're kind of out there on the edge, as far as this goes.

 

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

The sad truth here is that "fact after fact" of nature does not support the reported lies of evolutionists.

I would be happy to have a conversation if there is something specific you'd like to discuss.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

That is not true science, that is deception, and it took over after evolution was officially killed by genetics

You were misled about that, too.   You see, there was a big problem with Darwin's theory.    If heredity is like mixing paint (as most scientists of Darwin's time thought) then a new trait would be swamped in the population like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white.   Darwin's theory supposed that a new trait would somehow spread in a population if it was useful, but he could not explain how it might not simply be diluted out of existence.   Darwin himself recognized this problem, and supposed that some way to keep such new traits must be built into heredity.

Then in the 1900s, Mendel's work was rediscovered, and it was realized that heredity was like sorting beads, not like mixing paint.   Darwin's prediction was confirmed, and Darwin's theory was saved by genetics.

Darwin and DNA: How genetics spurred the evolution of a theory

Mendel and Darwin lived at the same time but never met - yet their ideas about of the natural world would unite into a single revolutionary discovery  

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130880-400-the-odd-couple-how-evolution-and-genetics-finally-got-together/

Edited August 16, 2022 by The Barbarian

[teddyv]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Sorry, that's wrong.   Evolution only has to account for the way allele frequencies change in a population. 

Theories are accountable only for their predictions.    Which of Darwin's four points do you think has been refuted?  Be specific.

 

I don't think that is anything I wrote that you quoted.

 

[The Barbarian]

15 minutes ago, teddyv said:

I don't think that is anything I wrote that you quoted.

 

So you didn't.   Sorry.

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I would be happy to have a conversation if there is something specific you'd like to discuss.

I'd like to see that, too.

 

[SwordMaster]

Quote

Well, let's just recognize that Christians differ on the meaning of some of the verses and that it's not a salvation issue, anyway. 

First...Scripture is NOT up for personal interpretation. Every verse has one meaning, just like every sentence you speak has but one meaning. Claiming that there are different meanings based upon how you want to read them is an illegitimate argument to begin with.

Secondly, as I stated clearly earlier, while this is not a "salvation issue," it IS an "eternal life" issue. 

 

 

 

 

[SwordMaster]

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Example?

 

 

Medical records are replete with examples of miracles. For one example, A coworker of mine a number of years ago came to be in the last stage of breast cancer, where the cancer had metastasized into her bones and was literally breaking and cracking them into splinters. She was in so much pain that she just wanted to die.

I prayed for her, and she was instantly healed on the spot. When she went to her oncologist later that week he took full x-rays and could find no cancer in her body anywhere, where all of the x-rays that had been taken beforehand shown cancer in every part of her body.

The facts are there, you just have to dig for them. Do the doctors always claim it as a miracle? No, because they were trained in evolutionary biology where miracles don't occur because naturalism states that there is no God.