We've got another suitor!  

RR, tell us what you don't understand about evolutionary biology that has you thinking that anyone (or anything) pulls heritable biological traits and/or structures out of thin air?  Thin air is not where you get your genes from.  What don't we see popping up all over the place, mutations...adaptations?  We do.  Mutations are random(ish), adaptation is not.  Neither are intentional.

You simply cannot walk away with even a rudimentary understanding of modern synth thinking that a pixie is yanking invisible levers. There's no way to sugar coat this.

C'mon now Khemical. We all know that mutations have to pop up almost overnight, or at least within six days. After all, their all-powerful gawd has to rest every seventh.

(November 3, 2017 at 7:56 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(November 3, 2017 at 5:52 pm)Godscreated Wrote:  that wouldn't happen in a natural situation, like you said you mutated it. in nature the mutation already exist in the DNA or the information becomes mutated for whatever reason. Either way the DNA has nothing new only corrupted info that was already there.

So are you saying that mutations happen or not? Basically you are in full equivocation mode at the moment. Let's rephrase exactly what you said to keep the same meaning:

"Mutations do not happen in nature. In nature the mutation already exists in the DNA. Or the DNA becomes mutated. The DNA has always been corrupted."

An utterly meaningless sentence.

You are right what you wrote is totally meaningless, what i wrote was made perfectly clear and since you can't dispute it you are deflecting, I'm getting really tired of this childish nonsense and do not wish to continue in this kinda' discussion.

(November 3, 2017 at 5:52 pm)Godscreated Wrote: Lab work doesn't count as a natural process and you know it. Even in the lab there has been no changing one kind into another.

Mathilda Wrote:So now you need to explain why lab work does not count. Saying "and you know it" does not count, sorry. What is it about a lab that means that the process is not equivalent? Ever heard of computer simulations? We now know you do not understand what information is so I suppose there is no reason to assume that you understand what a computer simulation is or why they are useful.

You are becoming more childish by the post, stop and save your integrity. Please read with some kinda' comprehension you are smarter than you are showing at this time. I said lab work doesn't count as a natural process and you know it, why, because it is in a controlled environment. Lab work can be extremely important for many thing but not to duplicate natural processes.

Mathild Wrote:For the record. Mutations do happen.

Of coarse they do, I explained to you just how they occur in my previous post, you know the one you belittled because you have no answer against it.

Mathilda Wrote:Human mutation rate revealed

Quote:Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome.

This number — the first direct measurement of the human mutation rate — is equivalent to one mutation in every 30 million base pairs, and matches previous estimates from species comparisons and rare disease screens.

But I have no doubt that you will continue to state that mutations do not add information to the system without knowing what information is, in the belief that mutations both do and do not happen and that something can be corrupted without first being not corrupted.

 They do not, the mutations result from information that is already present in the DNA the cause could be many things. From parts of the DNA being damaged to an incomplete development of the DNA information. Like I said I'm through because of your childishness and defections.

GC

GC, you've been asked this before, repeatedly, and completely ignored it, repeatedly, but I'll give it one more go.

Would you please give your understanding of what the theory of evolution describes?

(November 3, 2017 at 9:55 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: GC, you've been asked this before, repeatedly, and completely ignored it, repeatedly, but I'll give it one more go.

Would you please give your understanding of what the theory of evolution describes?

"Well, the Bible says...." 

(November 3, 2017 at 8:59 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

Quote:https://www.dnalc.org/view/16982-The-Eye...unked.html


Click - if you are not afraid of accidentally learning something.

I didn't have time to watch the video....

Do they have new facts concerning the evolution of the eye;  or did they just shine up some old "just so" stories?
My favorite part of the old show, was when with some nifty slight of hand, they pull some lenses, some cones, and other stuff out of thin air (abracadabra style) when they think no one is looking.  I'm always curious if this is the case, then why don't we see this kind of stuff popping up all over the place? It seems only to be where and when needed (which doesn't sound very random or unintentional to me).

Make some time.  Maybe put down that stupid fucking bible and learn something useful.

(November 3, 2017 at 9:55 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: GC, you've been asked this before, repeatedly, and completely ignored it, repeatedly, but I'll give it one more go.

Would you please give your understanding of what the theory of evolution describes?

And while GC is (not) answering, tell us what information is and what mutations are. Because at the moment all we can see is that he doesn't know, and deliberately does not want to know so that he can continue saying that mutations do not increase information. And when pressed on the matter says that I am being childish and that he does not want to continue. When pressed for whether mutations happen it is not clear whether he believes they do or not.


What is information?
What is a mutation?
Justify why you say that a mutation of the data does not increase information.
Please describe the theory of evolution by natural selection.


Until GC answers these then we can ignore everything he says on the subject.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...160756.htm

Notice that the article says that it's "according to research papers", as distinct from "according to evolutionists". I mention it now, because it's likely the last time we'll see it here.

(November 3, 2017 at 8:59 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

Quote:https://www.dnalc.org/view/16982-The-Eye...unked.html


Click - if you are not afraid of accidentally learning something.

I didn't have time to watch the video....

Do they have new facts concerning the evolution of the eye;  or did they just shine up some old "just so" stories?
My favorite part of the old show, was when with some nifty slight of hand, they pull some lenses, some cones, and other stuff out of thin air (abracadabra style) when they think no one is looking.  I'm always curious if this is the case, then why don't we see this kind of stuff popping up all over the place? It seems only to be where and when needed (which doesn't sound very random or unintentional to me).

My favorite part is how you guys would have to actually witness the evolution of the human eye from start to finish with your own two in order to satisfy your incredulity of the process, yet you'll accept the claim that a person came back from the dead based on nothing but a book of magic stories written by unverifiable sources two-thousand years ago.  This hypocrisy is unmatched.

I mean, if we just said, 'God did evolution with his inexplicable god-powers,' instead of, ya know, learning about it via evidence and observation, would that make it more palatable to you? Because, that seems to be a perfectly satisfactory explaination for all your other beliefs.