Is there objective Truth?

[Soldat Du Christ]

So according to your reasoning, deductive reasoning is useless then?

---

Correction... I've never observed genetic mutation adding NEW genetic information.

Fixed your post.

In response to your baseless assertion which has been proven to be wrong, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html.

In fact I'd advise you to read the whole of talk origins. It pretty comprehensively debunks the fallacies and lies of the shits behind creatardism and cdesign propnentsistism.

These arn't examples of NEW gentetic code being introduced, but taken from one source to another. Or devolving which doesn't help your case

[Edwardo Piet]

42 pages....still not sure what an objective truth is

It's just truth, really.

It's objective in the sense of absolute. The truth is the actual state of things objectively and absolutely.

The concept of truth, or "truth" may be interpreted different relatively and subjectively to people... but when most people talk of truth they are talking about the actual state of things objectively how it corresponds to reality.

So really "truth" is just shorthand for "objective truth".

It's "subjective truth" that doesn't really make any sense (in a similar way to how obversely "objective bias" doesn't make any sense)... unless by that what is meant is "the objective truth about people's subjectivity" or "people's subjective interpretation of objective truth as opposed to the objective truth itself."

[GrandizerII]

So according to your reasoning, deductive reasoning is useless then?

---

Fixed your post.

In response to your baseless assertion which has been proven to be wrong, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html.

In fact I'd advise you to read the whole of talk origins. It pretty comprehensively debunks the fallacies and lies of the shits behind creatardism and cdesign propnentsistism.

These arn't examples of NEW gentetic code being introduced, but taken from one source to another. Or devolving which doesn't help your case

What the hell do you mean by NEW genetic code?

[Soldat Du Christ]

So according to your reasoning, deductive reasoning is useless then?

---

These arn't examples of NEW gentetic code being introduced, but taken from one source to another. Or devolving which doesn't help your case

What the hell do you mean by NEW genetic code?

I don't know how else to clarify what i mean by new, it's self explanitory. We have observed genetic information being passed latteraly from one gene pool to another, and mutatations causing a distortion of existing genetic code. That's losing information, not new information.

The forementioned page by Joseph boxhorn suggests we can observe speciation in the isolation of interbreeding organisms, the 'biological species concept'. The whole idea is contingent on classification and cannot be used as a solid foundation for conclusive research. He admits that there is uncertainty in this area in 2.2.2 stating "The application of the BSC to a number of groups, including land plants, is problematical because of interspecific hybridization between clearly delimited species"

At the end of the day we have not, and i dare say cannot observe a phenomena that hides behind billions of years.

[GrandizerII]

What the hell do you mean by NEW genetic code?

I don't know how else to clarify what i mean by new, it's self explanitory. We have observed genetic information being passed latteraly from one gene pool to another, and mutatations causing a distortion of existing genetic code. That's losing information, not new information.

Mutations leading to new information (e.g., way of functioning, physical trait). Sometimes, it can have negative effects, sometimes positive, and sometimes a combination of both, depending on the environment type in which the mutation (or set of mutations) develop(s).

[The Grand Nudger]

What the hell do you mean by NEW genetic code?

I don't know how else to clarify what i mean by new, it's self explanitory. We have observed genetic information being passed latteraly from one gene pool to another, and mutatations causing a distortion of existing genetic code. That's losing information, not new information.

Ignore, for a moment, that this is entirely false -at best-, and at worst, meaningless.  Imagine that we've only seen "loss" of information.  So what?  It doesn't change what we see, the speciation observed.  This is just another example of how everyone being wrong abut everything won't make you right about anything.

[bennyboy]

These arn't examples of NEW gentetic code being introduced, but taken from one source to another. Or devolving which doesn't help your case

Eh? Devolving? Is that a thing? I mean. . . is that a thing in evolutionary theory? Cuz I don't think there's such a thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

You have to keep in mind that these are people who think that evolution has some sort of ascending goal to devolve -from-.   They can;t step out of their religious beliefs -about- man (or anything else) earnestly enough to comprehend the subject they feel compelled to opine about.

[downbeatplumb]

You have to keep in mind that these are people who think that evolution has some sort of ascending goal to devolve -from-.   They can;t step out of their religious beliefs -about- man (or anything else) earnestly enough to comprehend the subject they feel compelled to opine about.

Indeed some people think that evolution has a goal and that goal is us and not just the body changing to fit the environment.
This does not fit with their simplistic view of the universe and cant see that evolution leads sometimes to loss of limbs such as snakes and can also lead to silly things like aquatic mammals who still need to come to the surface to breathe.
They want to see design they want to see purpose, they are fools.

[chimp3]

Soldat du Christ : Gene duplication.