05 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThat's three completely irrelevant sentences strung together.
The fact that it has never been observed can be considered evidence. The fact that there is information that codes for the reproduction of the proteins and the cells that make up the creature is evidence. The fact that this information code is also programmed with error correcting code is also evidence that it was not meant to change to another creature.
For non scientist like us, I think that is enough to start with.
The Instructor
The notion that something has to be observed for you to believe it exists is ludicrous. As has been pointed out above, you believe plenty of things exist that you have never seen.
Your second sentence doesn't even make any sense. As for the third, the error correcting mechanism doesn't apply to mutations, which are the building blocks for evolution to build upon.
Originally posted by Proper KnobI did not say that you have to observe something to believe in it. I said it could be considered evidence, since you atheist don't see God and consider that evidence that God does not exist. Obviously, I can't see God, but I believe in His existence.
That's three completely irrelevant sentences strung together.
The notion that something has to be observed for you to believe it exists is ludicrous. As has been pointed out above, you believe plenty of things exist that you have never seen.
Your second sentence doesn't even make any sense. As for the third, the error correcting mechanism doesn't apply to mutations, which are the building blocks for evolution to build upon.
In the second statement, I was referring to the DNA information programming in the cell as you should have been able to figure out from my third point.
On the third point, I am not saying that mutations don't take place and could not possibly account for large enough changes to bridge the kinds gap. However, I do believe it is impossible. But what I was saying is the error correcting program and mechanisms of the cell show that the programmer and designer of the cell did not mean for it to change beyond the variations stage within species. That is, it shows a purpose by an intelligent designer.
One does not actually have to observe the programmer or designer doing His work to realize there was an intelligent programmer and designer for the cell.
The Instructor
06 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsLet's see if we can get some sense into this exchange because I have no idea what you are rambling on about now. I mean, 'the variations stage within species'? You're just making terminology up now.
I did not say that you have to observe something to believe in it. I said it could be considered evidence, since you atheist don't see God and consider that evidence that God does not exist. Obviously, I can't see God, but I believe in His existence.
In the second statement, I was referring to the DNA information programming in the cell as you should ha ...[text shortened]... k to realize there was an intelligent programmer and designer for the cell.
The Instructor
My point is this, the Lenski ecoli experiment demonstrated, unequivocally, that DNA can change over time through the process of beneficial mutation. That is beyond dispute. We have the data for it.
So bearing that in mind, if a small amount of DNA can change by beneficial mutation in a small amount of time, surely a large amount of DNA can change over a large amount of time? If not why not?
06 Aug 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobI dispute it because I am not aware that it is a truthful statement or not. I seriously doubt that there are really any beneficial mutations. It may just appear that way to some people.
Let's see if we can get some sense into this exchange because I have no idea what you are rambling on about now. I mean, 'the variations stage within species'? You're just making terminology up now.
My point is this, the Lenski ecoli experiment demonstrated, unequivocally, that DNA can change over time through the process of beneficial mutation. That ...[text shortened]... f time, surely a large amount of DNA can change over a large amount of time? If not why not?
The Instructor
06 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou 'seriously doubt' anything you see as a threat to your religion. We know that. However, your serious doubt does not make you right and them wrong, it just leaves you wrong and ignorant. If you had doubts based on reasoning, then someone would be happy to explain it all to you and assuage your doubt. But we all know that your doubts are purely based on your religious denialism and nothing else. Despite the large number of youtube videos you post about DNA, you don't appear to actually watch them and understand anything.
I seriously doubt that there are really any beneficial mutations.
06 Aug 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, I know you don't watch them.
You 'seriously doubt' anything you see as a threat to your religion. We know that. However, your serious doubt does not make you right and them wrong, it just leaves you wrong and ignorant. If you had doubts based on reasoning, then someone would be happy to explain it all to you and assuage your doubt. But we all know that your doubts are purely based on ...[text shortened]... e videos you post about DNA, you don't appear to actually watch them and understand anything.
The Instructor
07 Aug 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobOkay. I looked it up. But it still seems more like adaptation to me - Like a little dog and a big dog. The Ecoli were not said to have changed into something else after all those generations, they were still called Ecoli.
Have you looked it up?
The Instructor
07 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are avoiding the question I see. Is that an admission that you were wrong and that you now know that beneficial mutations do happen, or do you just want to avoid discussing it? (because you know you are wrong but don't like to admit it).
Okay. I looked it up. But it still seems more like adaptation to me - Like a little dog and a big dog. The Ecoli were not said to have changed into something else after all those generations, they were still called Ecoli.
The Instructor
07 Aug 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is not clear to me that there were beneficial mutations. As I said before, it seems more like beneficial adaptations by natural selection to me.
You are avoiding the question I see. Is that an admission that you were wrong and that you now know that beneficial mutations do happen, or do you just want to avoid discussing it? (because you know you are wrong but don't like to admit it).
The Instructor
07 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are making no sense whatsoever?!
It is not clear to me that there were beneficial mutations. As I said before, it seems more like beneficial adaptations by natural selection to me.
The Instructor
How can you accept that adaption has occurred but not accept that any beneficial mutations occurred? What causes the adaption?
07 Aug 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe Creator programmed the ability to adapt into His creatures.
You are making no sense whatsoever?!
How can you accept that adaption has occurred but not accept that any beneficial mutations occurred? What causes the adaption?
The DNA Instruction Manual
Ultimate Wildlife: Animal Adaptation
The Instructor