The Problem of Darwin and DNA

[Weatherman2020]

I've used simple known science.

Youve only used your simple minded opinions so far. Like when you claimed DNA could have no additions.

Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.
View attachment 92944

I believe virus can add new information. Our Inner Viruses: Forty Million Years In the Making

A virus is still a virus, 40 million years or not.

Virus' add new dna to existing host dna thus naturally adding new information,

Uh, no. Viruses don't turn healthy cells into other viruses.

 

[flacaltenn]

That'll be a different OP. But yes, each kind was created at one point in time and each kind has its own tree, but that tree is only of its kind.

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

That'll be a different OP. But yes, each kind was created at one point in time and each kind has its own tree, but that tree is only of its kind.

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.t.

I think you are giving Weather too much credit.

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact.

The only problem I see in the OP's assertions here is that mutations are destructions and "no new information can be created". The links I posted to "jumping genes" explain how RAPID transitions in evolution can be made. WITHOUT ADDING (physically inserting) new DNA.

This is because the DNA is not a static program. Genes can lie unexpressed for ages and suddenly be switched on. Like with the retroviruses that Coyote linked to -- All this REDUNDANT material is already there !!!

And the jumping genes can literally be like the "RESTORE" function on your computer. Bringing back ancient features that never activated in that plant/animal before.

 

[Coyote]

Why not? How do you think the DNA was created in the first place? 6000 years ago in a day?

That'll be a different OP. But yes, each kind was created at one point in time and each kind has its own tree, but that tree is only of its kind.

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.

All of what weatherman is saying is in 21st century versions of evolution. It is now accepted that mutation thru periods of intense cosmic ray bombardment, environmental chemical changes or even just normal stress on species can cause "spontaneous" spurts of evolutionary changes. These are stressors that can work MUCH FASTER then natural selection. And COULD account for a lot of the "MISSING" fossil records. Perhaps all these "missing links" existed for too short of a time to be discovered eons later.

Which leads to some interesting philosophical points about periods of "intense enviro change or rays from the cosmos" could be literally considered acts of God. I know that state farm defines "acts of God" in their policies.

It's fascinating to watch the sparring over Darwin. He has the same respect as ALL the 18th/19th century leaders of science do --- but the polititization of evolution sometimes keeps folks from realizing how little he actually knew about the MECHANISMS of evolution at the time he postulated all of that.

Agree. His theories were the foundation for modern evolution, but a lot has changed since then. The thing is - I keep seeing so-called "Intelligent Design" folks attacking Darwin as if we've never moved past those first explorations and ignoring subsequent discoveries. That's the politicization I tend to see. Evolutionary scientists squabble all the time (did it happen in spurts or over a long period or...what) - but the fundamental core theories are still upheld - change over time. Mutations still have to have a survival benefit or at least be neutral. Darwin holds a respected position in history, like many of the great scientists

 

[Coyote]

Youve only used your simple minded opinions so far. Like when you claimed DNA could have no additions.

Feel free to link to a study showing new information can naturally add itself to DNA strands.
View attachment 92944

I believe virus can add new information. Our Inner Viruses: Forty Million Years In the Making

A virus is still a virus, 40 million years or not.

Virus' add new dna to existing host dna thus naturally adding new information,

Uh, no. Viruses don't turn healthy cells into other viruses.

That's not what I said.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Darwin had no idea how reproduction worked in the age he lived in. Today we have a pretty good idea so let's look at how his theory fits into science.
View attachment 92909

Every cell in our body has DNA, and reproduces using that DNA. Everything we are is in that DNA strand. Yeah, you thought a blu-ray held a lot of information. Each cell in your body has that DNA strand that has all the information that is you in it.
So a single cell organism will have a DNA strand of a length, let's call it a length of 1 for the discussion. A horse will have a DNA strand length of 100,000. Longer because it has information about bones, eyes, ears, fur, etc.
View attachment 92904


When we reproduce each parent has DNA that is combined to make the offspring. If the DNA is split exactly 50/50 there are 2 possible outcomes for the offspring. In nature the DNA will be split between the parents in any combination, thus the offspring has over a million possible outcomes on their DNA. In this diagram there are 2 lines, each being the side of the double helix.
View attachment 92906
So when DNA replicates there is a sophisticated series of mechanisms that basically unzips the DNA and rezips it. Since every tiny section of that DNA is information as to who you are. Any error in the replication process is a mutation (there are mechanisms to repair these defects, but not for this discussion). For example, if you receive a lethal dose of radiation, the radiation does not kill your cells. What it does is damage the DNA so it cannot properly replicate. And since your body is having to constantly replace your cells, you soon die because your cells are not being replaced.

View attachment 92908

But let's say there is damage to the DNA that is nonlethal but there is enough DNA damage that causes a mutation in offspring. All mutations are because information is now missing from the DNA strand.
View attachment 92910

Let's use dogs as an example. The wolf is the most diverse animal in that group, because it has the most complex DNA. Because of that all of our dogs today are probably decendants of Wolves. Why? People have bred them into unique shapes and sizes. Each change (mutation) in the animals offspring is due to a section of information being removed or replaced.
For example, I want a dog with short legs so I keep breeding those with the shortest legs. What I have done is removed the information about a wolfs long legs and replaced it with short legs. But the inbreeding has created other errors in the DNA with parts now missing. I want a breed of dog with a short nose. What I've done is remove the DNA information about a wolfs long nose. That's why many breeds have a large number of health issues - we have altered DNA so that information has been removed or replaced into mutations we call poodles and pit bulls. The DNA strand of our pet dogs is much shorter than that of wolves. The changes I have made are only removing or replacing information in that DNA strand. In nature information can never be created.
View attachment 92911
That is important to remember. Information does not get created in nature. It has never been observed in a lab and we don't even know how it would be possible. It would be like ten thousand scrabble pieces falling on the floor and creating a logical and grammer perfect story, except the scrabble pieces would also have to self replicate out of nothing. Yes, information in a DNA strand can be duplicated. But that is not new information, it is a mutation of existing information. An insect can lose their wings because that information about wings is now gone. The information about wings cannot be added naturally. A brown moth species can become a white moth species because the DNA is altered so that white is the only color option in the DNA information.
View attachment 92912

So let's go back to Darwin. Our starting point is some primeval goo. That goo then reproduced into insects and soybeans and eventually humans.
View attachment 92913

Here lies the problem that Darwin had no way of knowing. For each progression additional information must be added to the DNA. In order for the goo to become a soybean plant a lot of information must be added to the DNA strand. That single cell organism that has a strand length of 1 must somehow obtain the information to get to a strand length of 1,000 for the Soybean plant.
View attachment 92914

But in nature, information can only be removed, not created. The problem Darwin has is his theory must have additional information being added all of the time, and we know in nature exactly the opposite is what occurs.

For information to be created, it needs a creator.

So what really happened to start life? Each shall reproduce of its own kind it says in Genesis. So take the Darwin chart again.
View attachment 92913

Instead of you being a family member of soybeans, each species was created and evolved (mutated) from there. Something like a wolf was first created, then information was removed to create toy poodles and chihuahuas. So that is one branch started. Cows mutated into Black Angus and other breeds. Another branch started. So thousands of branches were created, humans being one of them. Each species has its own tree, but each species remains unique and unchanging into alternate species because DNA information cannot be added in nature.

That is important to remember. Information does not get created in nature.

Can you prove it?

 

[flacaltenn]

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642929-jumping-genes-helped-evolution

Local research theory gives further proof to evolution and may help explain big evolutionary jumps in species.

Murdoch Univeristy Professor Wayne Greene and PhD student Keith Oliver have posited that transposons —also known as jumping genes—have had a larger role in primate and human evolution than is traditionally thought.

Prof Greene says the theory will help strengthen the argument for evolution and may be useful in explaining and understanding the large-scale changes that occur in a species, known as macroevolution.

“You can understand microevolution, small scale changes with a few little mutations here and there, but to make the big jumps in evolution it is really hard to understand without major changes to genomes which jumping genes can facilitate,” he says.

http://books.google.com/books?id=VRbjvoo4xfsC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=evolution+"jumping+genes"+mutation+cosmic+radiation&source=bl&ots=wN7GbqQTZu&sig=lgTcz05mrGV7PydmSPbL5vRdniQ&hl=en&ei=x-FqTv3xAeTY0QGIvuHlBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=evolution "jumping genes" mutation cosmic radiation&f=false

"The Three Big Bangs"-Dauber and Muller

Generally speaking, however, the molecular machinery that allows organisms to generate variety cannot run fast enough to respond to catastrophic changes in their environment. That is why mass extinctions due to extraterrestrial impacts force us to rethink evolution. An obsessive preoccupation with the question of "fitness" may have distracted scientists from examining the accumulating evidence for mass extinctions. As a result, we know think it likely that they have been misled for more than a hundred years. They have fooled themselves into thinking that the primary driving force of evolution has been competition among individuals and species under ORDINARY circumstances, when in fact the driving force has been another phenomenon entirely.

Mass extinctions and fossils is another thread I will start, sure to get the same polarized responses as this. The amount of tweaking of data and conclusions over the decades to make the current popular theory works is eye opening for those who are willing to see. We all look at the same evidence, which I will present as I did here, with shaded glasses and get different conclusions. The question is how tinted are our glasses.

It's all the same NEW evidence. Unfortunately, every time anybody even seems to question to Darwin, those tinted glasses come out. You're playing fair with all the new science. You just need to accept the fact that it's possible to Reactivate and ReUse EXISTING DNA coding that is already present. Nothing to "add" to cause an actual mutation.

 

[Syriusly]

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Still waiting for those names.

I'll do better. Here is Dr Watsons story of his conversion to Christianity.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com

Okay- so you are saying Collins is one of your 'discoverers' of the human genome- and here is what he said

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

Another quote from Collins:
“Darwin’s framework of variation and natural selection,” but especially Darwin’s picture of a Tree of Life—the common ancestry of all organisms on Earth—“is unquestionably correct” (141). Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non‐negotiable. The theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person.

Do you agree or disagree with Collins?

 

[Coyote]

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.t.

I think you are giving Weather too much credit.

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact.

The only problem I see in the OP's assertions here is that mutations are destructions and "no new information can be created". The links I posted to "jumping genes" explain how RAPID transitions in evolution can be made. WITHOUT ADDING (physically inserting) new DNA.

This is because the DNA is not a static program. Genes can lie unexpressed for ages and suddenly be switched on. Like with the retroviruses that Coyote linked to -- All this REDUNDANT material is already there !!!

And the jumping genes can literally be like the "RESTORE" function on your computer. Bringing back ancient features that never activated in that plant/animal before.

It's really incredible isn't it? The amount of information dormant in our genes and how credibly important the timing is - when to switch a gene on or off...at what point in development to create the creatures that exist today. The study of evolution is the closest we have to a physical map of some of these changes.

 

[Weatherman2020]

[ Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible.

Really?

So science supports a flood that covered the entire earth?

A flood that killed all but two of every species in the world?

So science supports the creation of life on earth- before the sun and other stars were created?

Tell me how science supports the conversion of plain water into wine by divine influence?

I don't know why folks like you feel like you need scientific validation for your religious beliefs.

But claiming that science supports the idea that humans were created before the sun was.....

Worthy of discussion but not for this thread.

The topic is we now have enough knowledge to discount evolution of species into other species.

 

[Coyote]

.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Ummm, that's not what I got from it. Again, there's a difference between spontaneous generation of life and the evolution of life. Religious people can believe God is powerful enough to cause the Big Bang 13.8+ Billion years ago and know that life would spring forth. Then again, some take the Bible literally and believe "Science" is the work of Satan.

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

Not really.

Nothing supports the creation of all creatures at one time.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Still waiting for those names.

I'll do better. Here is Dr Watsons story of his conversion to Christianity.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com

Okay- so you are saying Collins is one of your 'discoverers' of the human genome- and here is what he said

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

Another quote from Collins:
“Darwin’s framework of variation and natural selection,” but especially Darwin’s picture of a Tree of Life—the common ancestry of all organisms on Earth—“is unquestionably correct” (141). Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non‐negotiable. The theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person.

Do you agree or disagree with Collins?

He was a new Christian when he said that, I wonder what he thinks now.
Here is my conclusion.

 

[Coyote]

[ Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible.

Really?

So science supports a flood that covered the entire earth?

A flood that killed all but two of every species in the world?

So science supports the creation of life on earth- before the sun and other stars were created?

Tell me how science supports the conversion of plain water into wine by divine influence?

I don't know why folks like you feel like you need scientific validation for your religious beliefs.

But claiming that science supports the idea that humans were created before the sun was.....

Worthy of discussion but not for this thread.

The topic is we now have enough knowledge to discount evolution of species into other species.

Not at all. All you have are semantical games.

 

[Weatherman2020]

.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Ummm, that's not what I got from it. Again, there's a difference between spontaneous generation of life and the evolution of life. Religious people can believe God is powerful enough to cause the Big Bang 13.8+ Billion years ago and know that life would spring forth. Then again, some take the Bible literally and believe "Science" is the work of Satan.

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

Not really.

Nothing supports the creation of all creatures at one time.

Post 1 does.

 

[Syriusly]

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642929-jumping-genes-helped-evolution

Local research theory gives further proof to evolution and may help explain big evolutionary jumps in species.

Murdoch Univeristy Professor Wayne Greene and PhD student Keith Oliver have posited that transposons —also known as jumping genes—have had a larger role in primate and human evolution than is traditionally thought.

Prof Greene says the theory will help strengthen the argument for evolution and may be useful in explaining and understanding the large-scale changes that occur in a species, known as macroevolution.

“You can understand microevolution, small scale changes with a few little mutations here and there, but to make the big jumps in evolution it is really hard to understand without major changes to genomes which jumping genes can facilitate,” he says.

http://books.google.com/books?id=VRbjvoo4xfsC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=evolution+"jumping+genes"+mutation+cosmic+radiation&source=bl&ots=wN7GbqQTZu&sig=lgTcz05mrGV7PydmSPbL5vRdniQ&hl=en&ei=x-FqTv3xAeTY0QGIvuHlBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=evolution "jumping genes" mutation cosmic radiation&f=false

"The Three Big Bangs"-Dauber and Muller

Generally speaking, however, the molecular machinery that allows organisms to generate variety cannot run fast enough to respond to catastrophic changes in their environment. That is why mass extinctions due to extraterrestrial impacts force us to rethink evolution. An obsessive preoccupation with the question of "fitness" may have distracted scientists from examining the accumulating evidence for mass extinctions. As a result, we know think it likely that they have been misled for more than a hundred years. They have fooled themselves into thinking that the primary driving force of evolution has been competition among individuals and species under ORDINARY circumstances, when in fact the driving force has been another phenomenon entirely.

Mass extinctions and fossils is another thread I will start, sure to get the same polarized responses as this. The amount of tweaking of data and conclusions over the decades to make the current popular theory works is eye opening for those who are willing to see. We all look at the same evidence, which I will present as I did here, with shaded glasses and get different conclusions. The question is how tinted are our glasses.

It's all the same NEW evidence. Unfortunately, every time anybody even seems to question to Darwin, those tinted glasses come out. You're playing fair with all the new science. You just need to accept the fact that it's possible to Reactivate and ReUse EXISTING DNA coding that is already p

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

You're leaping to conclusions without any supporting evidence. It's one thing to say life spontaneously generated from rock, it's another to say once life existed, it naturally evolved into more complex forms.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.t.

I think you are giving Weather too much credit.

Weather has made some large unsubstantiated claims- and has danced from them ever since.

I am not sure who you are talking to when you tell me 'those of you that blindly accept' when it comes to Darwin's theories- Darwin was one of the two men who bundled up and put together a coherent theory of evolution that revolutionary for its time, and amazingly prescient in what it predicted given the tools at Darwin's disposal.

It would be amazing if Darwin got everything right- but the general theory that he produced- that organisms evolve from other organisms remains intact.

The only problem I see in the OP's assertions here is that mutations are destructions and "no new information can be created". The links I posted to "jumping genes" explain how RAPID transitions in evolution can be made. WITHOUT ADDING (physically inserting) new DNA..

The problem I have with the OP's assertions is that he dumps some actual science- and then jumps from there to unsubstantiated opinions of his as scientific fact- which he does repeatedly in these threads- here is a quote from the OP


Information does not get created in nature. It has never been observed in a lab and we don't even know how it would be possible. It would be like ten thousand scrabble pieces falling on the floor and creating a logical and grammer perfect story, except the scrabble pieces would also have to self replicate out of nothing. Yes, information in a DNA strand can be duplicated. But that is not new information, it is a mutation of existing information. An insect can lose their wings because that information about wings is now gone. The information about wings cannot be added naturally. A brown moth species can become a white moth species because the DNA is altered so that white is the only color option in the DNA information.

Anyone who has read evolutionary theory knows that 'wings' don't spontaniously jump into existance- they evolve from other structures- such as a small mammals forelimbs evolving into forelimbs with a membrane that allows flight.

The problem I have with the OP's assertions is that he dumps some actual science- and then jumps from there to unsubstantiated opinions of his as scientific fact- which he does repeatedly in these threads- here is a quote from the OP


Information does not get created in nature. It has never been observed in a lab and we don't even know how it would be possible. It would be like ten thousand scrabble pieces falling on the floor and creating a logical and grammer perfect story, except the scrabble pieces would also have to self replicate out of nothing. Yes, information in a DNA strand can be duplicated. But that is not new information, it is a mutation of existing information. An insect can lose their wings because that information about wings is now gone. The information about wings cannot be added naturally. A brown moth species can become a white moth species because the DNA is altered so that white is the only color option in the DNA information.

Anyone who has read evolutionary theory knows that 'wings' don't spontaniously jump into existance- they evolve from other structures- such as a small mammals forelimbs evolving into forelimbs with a membrane that allows flight

 

[Syriusly]

.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Ummm, that's not what I got from it. Again, there's a difference between spontaneous generation of life and the evolution of life. Religious people can believe God is powerful enough to cause the Big Bang 13.8+ Billion years ago and know that life would spring forth. Then again, some take the Bible literally and believe "Science" is the work of Satan.

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

Not really.

Nothing supports the creation of all creatures at one time.

Post 1 does.

Only in your head. Because you believe in the Bible.

 

[Coyote]

.

You miss the point. Both discoverers of the human genome do not believe in evolution into other species any more.

Ummm, that's not what I got from it. Again, there's a difference between spontaneous generation of life and the evolution of life. Religious people can believe God is powerful enough to cause the Big Bang 13.8+ Billion years ago and know that life would spring forth. Then again, some take the Bible literally and believe "Science" is the work of Satan.

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

Not really.

Nothing supports the creation of all creatures at one time.

Post 1 does.

No, it doesn't. It supports shared ancestory of species.

 

[Weatherman2020]

[ Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible.

Really?

So science supports a flood that covered the entire earth?

A flood that killed all but two of every species in the world?

So science supports the creation of life on earth- before the sun and other stars were created?

Tell me how science supports the conversion of plain water into wine by divine influence?

I don't know why folks like you feel like you need scientific validation for your religious beliefs.

But claiming that science supports the idea that humans were created before the sun was.....

Worthy of discussion but not for this thread.

The topic is we now have enough knowledge to discount evolution of species into other species.

Not at all. All you have are semantical games.

If you wish to tell us how DNA creates itself and adds itself to existing DNA, please do. You'll win a Nobel Prize for sure.

 

[Divine Wind]

I know of no one who believes science is anti-God. Yeah there probably are kooks out there, people think Elvis is alive too so don't start linking.

God created science so science and God dovetail each other. Mind boggling you say? It's not. Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible. 50 years ago science said the universe always existed. Now science says it had a beginning. We already knew that. The supporting evidence is repeated many times.

Know personally or on this forum? Personally, I agree, but the subject doesn't come up in polite conversation. However, I've been to a few churches where people took the Bible literally. It didn't come up, but clearly one can't take the Bible literally and accept science at the same time.

 

[Coyote]

[ Everything we learn supports the Judeo-Christian documents we call the Bible.

Really?

So science supports a flood that covered the entire earth?

A flood that killed all but two of every species in the world?

So science supports the creation of life on earth- before the sun and other stars were created?

Tell me how science supports the conversion of plain water into wine by divine influence?

I don't know why folks like you feel like you need scientific validation for your religious beliefs.

But claiming that science supports the idea that humans were created before the sun was.....

Worthy of discussion but not for this thread.

The topic is we now have enough knowledge to discount evolution of species into other species.

Not at all. All you have are semantical games.

If you wish to tell us how DNA creates itself and adds itself to existing DNA, please do. You'll win a Nobel Prize for sure.

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. Yet.

Only you seem to want to use unanswered questions to support your "theories" - absence of evidence as evidence. Not sure how sound that is.

 

[Weatherman2020]

That'll be a different OP. But yes, each kind was created at one point in time and each kind has its own tree, but that tree is only of its kind.

As long as the tree is "Life", then we can agree. If you say it's a forest of individual trees which spontaneously generated, then I'd like to know your opinion of which this forest sprung and when since you don't agree with the common scientific explanations.

The two gentlemen who discovered the human genome both went into their work as atheists. One came out saying aliens started life here, the other says God did it. The point is, both see how things work on a level Darwin never knew existed and both see the impossibility of evolution as the cause.

Names please. I am curious whether either of these gentlemen ever denied Darwin's theory of evolution.

This is not a matter of denying Darwin his due for "natural selection". Because that is ONE form of evolution. He had no way to see other paths to evolution as we do now. Those of you that blindly accept the grade school notion that Darwin's "survival of fittest" is the unimpeachable end point of evolutionary science are as retarded as the folks who reject all evolution through faith.

All of what weatherman is saying is in 21st century versions of evolution. It is now accepted that mutation thru periods of intense cosmic ray bombardment, environmental chemical changes or even just normal stress on species can cause "spontaneous" spurts of evolutionary changes. These are stressors that can work MUCH FASTER then natural selection. And COULD account for a lot of the "MISSING" fossil records. Perhaps all these "missing links" existed for too short of a time to be discovered eons later.

Which leads to some interesting philosophical points about periods of "intense enviro change or rays from the cosmos" could be literally considered acts of God. I know that state farm defines "acts of God" in their policies.

It's fascinating to watch the sparring over Darwin. He has the same respect as ALL the 18th/19th century leaders of science do --- but the polititization of evolution sometimes keeps folks from realizing how little he actually knew about the MECHANISMS of evolution at the time he postulated all of that.

Agree. His theories were the foundation for modern evolution, but a lot has changed since then. The thing is - I keep seeing so-called "Intelligent Design" folks attacking Darwin as if we've never moved past those first explorations and ignoring subsequent discoveries. That's the politicization I tend to see. Evolutionary scientists squabble all the time (did it happen in spurts or over a long period or...what) - but the fundamental core theories are still upheld - change over time. Mutations still have to have a survival benefit or at least be neutral. Darwin holds a respected position in history, like many of the great scientists

Please tell me where evolutionists are arguing men did not evolve from apes.

You may wish to believe your family relative is broccoli but I don't see that evidence.