How mutation adds information to a population genome

[SwordMaster]

9 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

As your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise notes, there is also very good evidence from the numerous fossil transitionals between fish and tetrapods for macroevolutionary theory.   

He is wrong, just like so-called "christians" who believe homosexuals are not abominations in God's sight.

Plus, in truth, what you have given above is only drawings of certain appendages of certain organisms...there are not linear lines of progression from one to another, only make-believe imaginary lines connecting them according to the wild and unscientific imaginations of evolutionary theorists. 

Like Mayr said, what runs evolutionary science is not scientific facts and experimentation or observation of change - instead, it is run by the imaginations of theorists giving us their assumptions on how they believe evolution took place.

That is not science, sir...that is fairy tale composition.

Try again, you failed again...

 

[SwordMaster]

9 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Nope.  If you can't show that they couldn't evolve, then it's possible that they did.  

 

I have demonstrated that they could not evolve in the manner in which TOE claims to have taken place. The fact that you reject it does not make it not so...it only makes you a person that...

 

Quote

So your claim fails.   I imagine you've realized that such things can indeed evolve, even if we don't yet know how. 

Your imagination is running away with you, nothing can evolve in the manner in which TOE claims, and if you exercised your brain power for even a milli-second you might see it if your bias does not completely run your brain.  

Let's see if we can't get your brain exercised...

Let's start with a worm. A simple organism. It has a mouth, anus, heart, basic nerve chord, gizzard, etc...no thyroid gland, no teeth or appendix, no eyes or ears, no arms or legs, etc.

What happens to an appendage in human beings if all of the vascularization dies because of a disease? The entire appendage will die. What happens if all of the nerves are destroyed in that appendage? It becomes useless, will atrophy, turn black and die. What happens if all of the layers of dermis is removed from that appendage? It will die. What happens if there is no muscle in that appendage? It becomes non-functional. What happens if there are no bones in that appendage? It will become useless and become a hazard to the person it is attached to.

Now, go back to the worm...in a population of worms, one incurs a mutation that causes a small mass of hard matter to be coded for. A few million years go by and in that population another mutation hits that confers upon a worm a small blob of flesh hanging on the outside of its body...completely useless. 

Can you give us any kind of clear, plausible line of descent genetically, mutation-wise, that might cause a population of worms to some day give way to a functional arm, complete with skin, bone, innervation, musculature, and vascularization? The facts of nature dictates that you cannot because it is not possible.

A piece of bone might show up...but with no muscle, innervation, vascularization, etc., that piece of bone is useless...more like a tumor than anything else. There is no plausible step-by-step mutational happens stance that can build a functional living arm piece by piece. In fact, the entire body of any organism is irreducibly complex.

Now, I know that you can probably make up some form of argument against IC when it comes to proteins and enzymes (which, in itself, holds no water), but the entire organism is different. To claim that evolution lead from a single celled organism into a human being (or anything else for that matter) means that you put more faith in fairy tales than in what God's Word clearly teaches.

 

 

[SwordMaster]

9 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I recognize that those who accept the Apostle's creed are Christians.  That is how they recognized each other during the persecutions.   Your modern revisions are merely the additions made by some sect among Christians and do not define who we are.

Let God handle that, and you'll be troubled no more by it.

And I never claimed to be intelligent.  But thank you for assuming it.

 

 

Sorry, but the apostles creed was never codified by any apostle, but by the RCC. It is the creed of catholics. Furthermore, no one is a Christian simply because they believe anything...if you think you are a Christian just because you believe in Christ, then you deceive yourself...

 

John 3:36  Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever does not obey the Son will never know life, because the wrath of God remains abiding upon him.

 

There are more, but one shall suffice. No one is a Christian because they believe the apostles creed, and claiming that nonsense should make all who read your post to take note. One is a Christian because they not only believe in Christ and God, but also in what His Word clearly states and teaches, and by walking in obedience to His Word and entering into covenant and personal relationship with God. That is what makes a person a Christian...not simply believing in Him, and certainly NOT because they believe a man-made creed that does NOT demonstrate the totality of what the Apostles taught.

But, as I have stated before...nice try, but you fail again.

 

[SwordMaster]

9 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You're claiming that these are impossible to evolve, but you offer no reason for us to believe it.   And yes, unless you want to admit that it is possible, you have to show that it is not.

 

Again, you stand with those who claim that evolution is a fact, even when some things cannot be quantified by the theory. 

Second, I wasn't addressing you in that post.

Third, your refusal to try and find an evolutionary creation of such things is truly telling.

 

 

Quote

It's all about that.   You see for whatever reason those prime number are difficult for predators to match.   And so these insects manage to appear in huge numbers without a corresponding large number of predators to take them.

LOL! You are again side-stepping the point. Predators have nothing to do with the supposed evolution of timing mechanisms in nature...and all you have done is butt in on the insect timing mechanism, leaving the plant examples alone...truly telling.

You lose again.

 

[SwordMaster]

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

If you want to bash evolution, that's fine. But this is outright slander. I know many Catholics that are solid Christians. You are not the gatekeeper of who is and who is not Christian.

I'm certain that not all Catholic church attenders are Christian. I'm just as certain that not all attenders of your church denomination are Christian.

This is true...as I stated earlier, 90% of those who claim to be Christians are not, they are religious or involved in churchianity or religiosity or simple deceived because they have no real relationship with God in Christ. 

Having stated that, what I said is not slander, because it is a general statement, not a detailed one. 

As far as catholics go...I know some who are devout to their religion, but that does not make them Christians. Christians do not worship Mary or pray to her and "saints" long dead...among numerous other false doctrines and practices within the RCC.

So, unless you can quantify what a "Catholics that are solid Christians" actually practice, then your statement is null and void.

 

[SwordMaster]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Here's why many cicadas mature in cycles that are prime numbers:

But the 13- and 17-year recurrence of cicada emergences may be an even savvier strategy. Both 13 and 17 are prime numbers, meaning they're divisible only by 1 and themselves. This means that emergences rarely overlap with predator population cycles that occur in shorter intervals. For example, if cicadas emerged every 10 years, they'd be susceptible to predators whose population boomed on a cycle of one, two, five or 10 years. If they came out every 12 years, they'd be a tasty snack for any predator on a cycle of one, two, three, four, six or 12 years. Thirteen years, though? Only one and 13. The same goes for a 17-year cycle.

Glenn Webb, a biological mathematician at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, has done mathematical modeling that suggests that if periodical cicadas didn't use prime-number cycles, they'd drop dramatically in numbers or go extinct. In a 2001 paper in the journal Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, Webb compared survival in cycles ranging from 10 to 18 years. Thirteen- and 17-year cycles performed best, yielding a stable population. The other cycle options led to declines, and 10-, 12- and 18-year cycles led to dramatic population losses or even extinction.

https://www.livescience.com/periodical-cicada-prime-numbers.html

That's all assumption with no evidential support whatsoever.

However...nothing here gives any kind of line of descent in evolutionary terms for describing how these timing mechanisms came into being. You are once again focusing on nothing that was my point. Side-stepping only demonstrates that you have no answer. Just confess that evolution can't answer the issue and move on...

 

[SwordMaster]

5 hours ago, ayin jade said:

As i read this thread i am reminded of a verse. I am limited to my phone for a few days as my husband is working out of town..and i went with him... So i cant post the verse.

If you have not love then your words are an obnoxious claxon.

I agree...but there is a very real problem with some Christians, they don't understand Biblical love from worldly love.

Biblical Godly love says that you correct those who are wrong, while worldly love says to be nice to people no matter what they say or believe. That kind of love sends people to eternal fire...

 

Ezekiel 3:18-19  18 If I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul.

Jude 1:22-23  22 Some people you can love into the Kingdom of God, making a difference in their lives that catches their attention; 23 but others will only respond to fear, drawing them out of the eternal fire that they are headed into; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. 

 

This is Godly love for people. We must be careful that we don't confuse worldly love for Godly love, because if we do then we will be held accountable for doing the wrong things, like letting people continue in false doctrine instead of trying to educate them with truth.

Blessings

 

[The Barbarian]

51 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

That's all assumption with no evidential support whatsoever.

As you see, mathematicians show that these intervals are optimal for the cicadas to avoid any predator intervals.   There's really no point in denying the facts.

52 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

However...nothing here gives any kind of line of descent in evolutionary terms for describing how these timing mechanisms came into being.

One merely notes that they are indeed optimal.  There are cicadas with other intervals but they are less numerous, because of predation.     It's a great evolutionary strategy.   If you think that there's no way for such a thing to evolve, now would be the time for you to show us.

Entraining is a common phenomenon in biology.   Sometimes, it's length of day.  Sometimes, it's temperature.   Sometimes, it's tidal cycles.   But since we know that it is something that evolution produces, we're very sure that there is something or things that cicadas use for that purpose.

Because you can't show that such things don't evolve, you dodge the issue to find something that hasn't been discovered yet.   You should just admit that there's no reason to think this is any different than other entraining and move on.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, SwordMaster said:

I agree...but there is a very real problem with some Christians, they don't understand Biblical love from worldly love.

Biblical Godly love says that you correct those who are wrong, while worldly love says to be nice to people no matter what they say or believe. That kind of love sends people to eternal fire...

Jesus was kind to those who didn't believe.    Perhaps His way is better than yours.   People often think the parable of the Good Samaritan is about being kind to the unfortunate.   But Jesus chose a despised heretic for his hero and then told His followers to emulate that heretic rather than a theologically correct Levite, because the Samaritan loved his neighbor, and the Levite did not.

He's talking to you.   Might be a good thing to listen to Him.

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

10 hours ago, one.opinion said:

If you want to bash evolution, that's fine. But this is outright slander. I know many Catholics that are solid Christians. You are not the gatekeeper of who is and who is not Christian.

I can only go by what people say that they believe. For example, I tend to think that if a person believes that there is one God, that God is three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That Jesus is the Son of God, in human flesh, born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died for sinners on the cross, was entombed then rose from the dead after three days, ascended to heaven and will return visibly some day, I have a difficult time saying some one like that is not a Christian.

Does the Roman Catholic Church have some doctrinal and practical problems? Certainly, but that does not mean that Catholics are not Christian.