Creation vs Evolution

The problem with your assumption chickenlover is that the "proof" you give is merely speculation based on the assumptions of Evolution; not proven. Also a good thing to look at would be the fruit fly experiment mentioned earlier: these flies went through thousands of generations and were bombarded with radiation to induce mutation. Now, mutation did occur; but it was only on the phenotypic level adding new legs, arms etc. Never did they speciate or even gain a helpful mutation. In fact, all mutations that were observed were harmful or lethal to the life of the fly. This makes the chances so astronomical that random mutations caused speciation that the suggested 4.5 billion years the Earth has been around is merely a small, minute fraction of the time necessary for it to take place.

And better yet, all mutations disappeared in the 7th generation of these flies and the genetic code reset.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
The problem with your assumption chickenlover is that the "proof" you give is merely speculation based on the assumptions of Evolution; not proven. Also a good thing to look at would be the fruit fly experiment mentioned earlier: these flies went through thousands of generations and were bombarded with radiation to induce mutation. Now, mutation did occur; but it was only on the phenotypic level adding new legs, arms etc. Never did they speciate or even gain a helpful mutation. In fact, all mutations that were observed were harmful or lethal to the life of the fly. This makes the chances so astronomical that random mutations caused speciation that the suggested 4.5 billion years the Earth has been around is merely a small, minute fraction of the time necessary for it to take place.

well thats the point, most mutations were harmful, that is why it is an extremely gradual process. most mutations are harmful and the animal dies, but when we take the time factor, stuff will evolve. and a thousand generations is nothing, try a million or a billion, that is evolution it is gradual. and who knows how long it takes a certian species to evolve. just because their life cycle is short, doesnt mean their evolutionary cycle is long. that is something we cannot know

Originally posted by Transfinitum
And better yet, all mutations disappeared in the 7th generation of these flies and the genetic code reset.

ya because you know 4.5 billion years only had 7 generations 😈

Look up "information theory", it should solve this issue. It basically states that no new genetic information can be added to the genetic code. Think of it like the alphabet with ABC and D you can rearrange ABC and D in many ways, but you cannot add E. Also if a thousand generations (especially in the long-living ones) can take up to 50 million years, and we saw no helpful mutation; the probability of a helpful mutation, which then must pass through mendelian genetics during reproduction multiple times, then keep mutating randomly to a point of speciation is so great it would take hundred of billions of years. Your argument of age is completely misinformed.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Look up "information theory", it should solve this issue. It basically states that no new genetic information can be added to the genetic code. Think of it like the alphabet with ABC and D you can rearrange ABC and D in many ways, but you cannot add E. Also if a thousand generations (especially in the long-living ones) can take up to 50 million years, and we saw no helpful mutation; the probability of a helpful mutation, which then must pass through mendelian genetics during reproduction multiple times, then keep mutating randomly to a point of speciation is so great it would take hundred of billions of years. Your argument of age is completely misinformed.

have you heard of junk DNA? junk dna is replicated DNA of the same genetic material we already have. junk dna is able to be mutated because it is unused. i may not be able to phrase this very well as this is leonheartmm's argument but w/e. junk DNA mutates and this "adds" genetic material. in this way we see new information in the genome

By stating that there is "junk DNA" you are merely simplifying an argument by Schnider who said he proved a mutation that allowed new genetic material into the genome. Before you continue, read this
http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp
it will be a bit complex for you, but even if you get a snippet of it; you will see your flaw. Also a more simple explaination can be found at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/09/a_response_to_dr_dawkins_infor.html and on the topic of abiogenesis read http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html
Best of luck.

your "simplified" article was done by Dr Luskin of the discovery institute, i do believe digi already invalified and countered that article and why it was biased, unfair, and inaccurate. read some of the threads dude seriously.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
well they have both been observed and they both have scientific merit. i see no reason to disregard either term. they both seem very valid to me

That's fine. I wasn't trying to convert you into anything. I was originally addressing Transfinitum (Whob). But have a nice day. 😄

Originally posted by chickenlover98
have you heard of junk DNA? junk dna is replicated DNA of the same genetic material we already have. junk dna is able to be mutated because it is unused. i may not be able to phrase this very well as this is leonheartmm's argument but w/e. junk DNA mutates and this "adds" genetic material. in this way we see new information in the genom

Excellent! Provide an example please.

Lulz.

I like how ushome referred to our "debate" in the other thread, when all it was was him demanding sh*t like most angry ID advocates, me providing it at length and also pointing out why every one of his tactics is disingenuous, then he kinda never responded with anything resembling a cogent rebuttal. It wasn't really much of a debate.

Anyway, I'll repost the video and provide a link to my comments, because apparently yelling angrily about the same macroevolution problem over and over is more satisfying to them than actually addressing the facts.

Also, shakya, chicken, etc. It's not going help with these two (ushome at least, probably transfinitum too). Nice work and all chaps, but I'm usually more interested in helping those on the fence find justification for evolution, not trying to turn hardcore ID'ers. The only reason I poked into this thread at all was because I thought that's what trans was.

....anyway

...

Sweet Video:
YouTube video

Sweet essay-long refutation (if only I'd had the video instead 😬 ) of both the macroevolution non-problem and ID debating tactics:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=9981262#post9981262
...that's a link to the first of 4 posts.

Sweet quote that summarizes their madness:

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
We get it. Scientists must "document" evolution step by step, base pair by base pair, amino acid by amino acid, of a species into another species at I don't know how high a level in the Linnaean taxonomy to be deemed a different "kind" - a wholly unscientific term with no real criterion - for you to accept evolution. Because scientists haven't been able to document something that takes thousands if not millions of years, base pair by base pair, despite that humans haven't been around that long, you'll go on about how evolution is "just a theory." Of course not realizing that in science "theory" isn't a synonym for "conjecture."

We get it. No one cares. Stop posting videos. Believe in your god all you want, just keep him out of science classes.

Very well then; if Digi has left, that leaves my questions unanswered. The only reason I am a skeptic of Evolution is that these things happen. I ask questions, refute them, and then hope for an argument that cannot be beat. Once that is found, truth will reveal itself. Has the purpose of science been forgoten? I thought the purpose here was to find the truth, not bicker like old women.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Very well then; if Digi has left, that leaves my questions unanswered. The only reason I am a skeptic of Evolution is that these things happen. I ask questions, refute them, and then hope for an argument that cannot be beat. Once that is found, truth will reveal itself. Has the purpose of science been forgoten? I thought the purpose here was to find the truth, not bicker like old women.

I think your criticism is unfounded.

On what basis? I would request that you give me a reason it was, because I see no reason that it was unfounded. Please, educate me.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
On what basis? I would request that you give me a reason it was, because I see no reason that it was unfounded. Please, educate me.

Your judgement was too quick.

I'm still waiting for an example.

Agreed. The main poster has left ( in his own words). I think my judgement was as well though out as it could be.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Agreed. The main poster has left ( in his own words). I think my judgement was as well though out as it could be.

"The only reason I am a skeptic of Evolution is that these things happen."

I think you make them happen.

No, I just will not accept something that is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, like any scientifically educated person.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
No, I just will not accept something that is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, like any scientifically educated person.

What is a shadow of a doubt?