(January 31, 2012 at 8:36 pm)whateverist Wrote: Pearls before swine I'm afraid but I'm glad to spend time on a forum where people will make this kind of effort anyway, Mister Agenda.

I'm afraid most theists are not thinking people and so a debate with them is not intended as a truth finding activity. I think they see it as a contest in which one tries to keep the other side from making point by ignoring or twisting them, while throwing out as many challenges as possible to the other side. I'm no longer willing to debate with people who can't put what they will believe at stake.

Hey Whateverist, I think you replied to Mister Agenda's post but did not want to use it??

Quote tags again... I'm doing it too!

(January 31, 2012 at 7:16 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(January 29, 2012 at 7:53 pm)Undeceived Wrote: I'll repeat, DNA is supposed to be copied the same every time.

And this one sentence proves your total ignorance on the subject.

When a male and a female combine their DNA to produce a child that childs DNA is not the same as either of its parents.

It is new information.

Mutations don't happen during reproduction. They happen before. Two organisms combining information does not create new information, it merges and reduces it. Evolution requires that species diverge. You need information before you have information to pass on to offspring. Info such as recessive genes are lost in reproduction. Nothing can evolve simply by mating with its own species.

eh, what?

(February 1, 2012 at 4:20 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Mutations don't happen during reproduction. They happen before.

Mutations happen before, during and after reproduction.
Imagine it like this. Gene code of Organism 1 is AABBCC. If a mutation occurs and it turns to AABCBC, then it is new information.

(February 1, 2012 at 4:20 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Two organisms combining information does not create new information, it merges and reduces it.

If it is merging, the total information is increasing. Take the original organism 1 (AABBCC) and organism 2 (BBAACC). Any merging can give rise to lots of new information (AAAACC, BBBBCC, ABABCC, BABACC).

(February 1, 2012 at 4:20 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Evolution requires that species diverge.

Yes, the change does create divergence.

(February 1, 2012 at 4:20 pm)Undeceived Wrote: You need information before you have information to pass on to offspring.

But the information does not have to be the same.

(February 1, 2012 at 4:20 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Info such as recessive genes are lost in reproduction.

No they are not.

(February 1, 2012 at 4:20 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Nothing can evolve simply by mating with its own species.

They can and they do.

Quote:Yes, about 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct, exactly what you have just said we would expect if evolution were true.

http://www.endangeredspeciesinternationa...view1.html
905 discovered extinct species
8,700,000 (8.7m) living species

Dare I ask where you learned math?

We may be finding more extinct species by the year, but we're finding more living species by the day.

---

Genkaus, why do you think scientists predict all human skin colors will be the same (a middle Mandarin tone) in a thousand years? Because we combine and lose information the more generations we mate. When a brown-haired man with one recessive red-hair gene crosses with a blond-haired woman with no recessive red-hair genes, chances are the child will not get red hair and the red-hair phenotype will die out in that line. Meanwhile, we don't see any babies with green hair or hair with fur consistency. New genes are only developed by mutations, period. Google it.

(February 1, 2012 at 4:59 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

Quote:Yes, about 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct, exactly what you have just said we would expect if evolution were true.

http://www.endangeredspeciesinternationa...view1.html
905 discovered extinct species
8,700,000 (8.7m) living species

Dare I ask where you learned math?

We may be finding more extinct species by the year, but we're finding more living species by the day.

---

Genkaus, why do you think scientists predict all human skin colors will be the same (a middle Mandarin tone) in a thousand years? Because we combine and lose information the more generations we mate. When a brown-haired man with one recessive red-hair gene crosses with a blond-haired woman with no recessive red-hair genes, chances are the child will not get red hair and the red-hair phenotype will die out in that line. Meanwhile, we don't see any babies with green hair or hair with fur consistency. New genes are only developed by mutations, period. Google it.

Nobody but you thinks the world is 6000 years old here.

And extinct species extends to bacteria and other species that lived billions of years ago, Mr. Christian.

(February 1, 2012 at 4:59 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

Quote:Yes, about 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct, exactly what you have just said we would expect if evolution were true.

http://www.endangeredspeciesinternationa...view1.html
905 discovered extinct species
8,700,000 (8.7m) living species

Dare I ask where you learned math?

We may be finding more extinct species by the year, but we're finding more living species by the day.

Sigh. It is your presumption that the earth is young that blinds you to the obvious. The vast majority of organisms that have ever lived have gone extinct. From the Wikipedia article on extinction:

Through evolution, new species arise through the process of speciation—where new varieties of organisms arise and thrive when they are able to find and exploit an ecological niche—and species become extinct when they are no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition. The relationship between animals and their ecological niches has been firmly established. A typical species becomes extinct within 10 million years of its first appearance, although some species, called living fossils, survive virtually unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Most extinctions have occurred naturally, prior to Homo sapiens walking on Earth: it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

---

(February 1, 2012 at 4:59 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Genkaus, why do you think scientists predict all human skin colors will be the same (a middle Mandarin tone) in a thousand years?

It's true that genetic isolation plays a role in divergence, and it's intuitive that with people from every continent interbreeding the trend would be toward an 'averaging' of skin tones and other traits. If this were to happen it would be evolution in action. The operative definition of evolution in biology is 'change in allele frequency over time' and all humans winding up with the same shade of skin would certainly be that.

However, one of the things science teaches us is that intution must be verified. More recent estimates indicate that humans will continue to become more different based on their native continent because genetic intermixing is insufficient to overcome genetic drift. The averaged skin hue is the future of the melting pot continent of North America (which is probably the source of your prediction), but that is not the trend on the other continents inhabited by humans.

(February 1, 2012 at 4:59 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Because we combine and lose information the more generations we mate. When a brown-haired man with one recessive red-hair gene crosses with a blond-haired woman with no recessive red-hair genes, chances are the child will not get red hair and the red-hair phenotype will die out in that line.

OK. Say my mother has two genes for blue eyes and my father has one gene for brown eyes and one gene for blue eyes. I have a fifty-fifty chance of having brown or blue eyes. Say I have brown eyes and my wife has brown eyes and she has both genes for brown eyes. All of our children will have brown eyes, including the ones with one gene for blue eyes (the most they can get). If my daughter with one brown eye gene and one blue eye gene marries a man with both genes, any of their children will have a 1 in 4 chance of having blue eyes, and will have both blue-eye genes just like my mother. Recessive genes don't die out just because they're recessive. If the gene is neutral (no advantage or disadvantage to having blue eyes), it may or may not be conserved over generations, no particular trend one way or the other except by chance.

(February 1, 2012 at 4:59 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Meanwhile, we don't see any babies with green hair or hair with fur consistency. New genes are only developed by mutations, period. Google it.

Evolution doesn't predict any specific future mutations. It has to work with whatever mutations appear. Beneficial and potentially beneficial mutations in humans have been observed. Google it.

And who claimed that new genes are not developed by mutations? It's not exactly a news flash that genes change by mutation. It's their frequency that is modified by selection.

(February 1, 2012 at 4:59 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Genkaus, why do you think scientists predict all human skin colors will be the same (a middle Mandarin tone) in a thousand years? Because we combine and lose information the more generations we mate.

Different skin tones were results of isolation. What you don't realize is that this is new information as well. Initially the genes did not have the code for the middle Mandarin palette, later they will. See -new info.

(February 1, 2012 at 4:59 pm)Undeceived Wrote: When a brown-haired man with one recessive red-hair gene crosses with a blond-haired woman with no recessive red-hair genes, chances are the child will not get red hair and the red-hair phenotype will die out in that line.

A 75% chance, to be exact. If only one parent carries the recessive gene, then there is a 25 % chance that it will be inherited and if it is, the phenotype will not die out.

(February 1, 2012 at 4:59 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Meanwhile, we don't see any babies with green hair or hair with fur consistency. New genes are only developed by mutations, period. Google it.

Probably that's what they used to say about people with blue eyes, which too is a result of a specific mutation.

(February 1, 2012 at 4:20 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

(January 31, 2012 at 7:16 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(January 29, 2012 at 7:53 pm)Undeceived Wrote: I'll repeat, DNA is supposed to be copied the same every time.

And this one sentence proves your total ignorance on the subject.

When a male and a female combine their DNA to produce a child that childs DNA is not the same as either of its parents.

It is new information.

Mutations don't happen during reproduction. They happen before. Two organisms combining information does not create new information, it merges and reduces it. Evolution requires that species diverge. You need information before you have information to pass on to offspring. Info such as recessive genes are lost in reproduction. Nothing can evolve simply by mating with its own species.

Take a sample population of any given species.

Split that population into two groups.

Take those two groups and place them into two completely different environments.

Wait a couple of million years.

Those two groups will be different species.

And herein lies the true issue for cretinists.

Not Evolution, but the time scales involved for it to work.

Which co-incidentally throws your fairy tale out the window.

So your REAL task is to prove that the universe is only 6000 years old

Good luck with that....

---

Found this on Creationministries.org

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...GROrw6t_kA

Talk about setting the bar low.

Of course it's only 6,000 years old. The bible says so! And the bible is true because it's the word of God! It says so right there in the bible...