13 Jun 06
Originally posted by ChurlantAnd the dance with Kelly continues, never to be resolved. He's too good at avoiding questions.
Not to jump in here (even though I am), but aren't you basically agreeing that DNA mutation can lead to greater complexity, while also saying it can't become too complex?
How is that logical?
-JC
13 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ChurlantI'm saying that there can be small changes within DNA, there are
Not to jump in here (even though I am), but aren't you basically agreeing that DNA mutation can lead to greater complexity, while also saying it can't become too complex?
How is that logical?
-JC
small changes within DNA! That does not translate into over time
DNA keeps the good and through natural selection causes the bad
to die off. This keeping the good changes in DNA so that those
changes through time caused brains, eyes, ears, fingers, toes, blood,
nerves along with all that requires them to work together, is quite a
accomplishment of code writing, and have the growth of each
creature on top of that is quite a feat. One so great I do not believe
it to be true.
Kelly
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by KellyJaySo, now that he's responded to this post, does anyone now know whether KellyJay "basically [agrees] that DNA mutation can lead to greater complexity, while also saying it can't become too complex?"
I'm saying that there can be small changes within DNA, there are
small changes within DNA! That does not translate into over time
DNA keeps the good and through natural selection causes the bad
to die off. This keeping the good changes in DNA so that those
changes through time caused brains, eyes, ears, fingers, toes, blood,
nerves along with all that ...[text shortened]...
creature on top of that is quite a feat. One so great I do not believe
it to be true.
Kelly
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are complicating my question...
I'm saying that there can be small changes within DNA, there are
small changes within DNA! That does not translate into over time
DNA keeps the good and through natural selection causes the bad
to die off. This keeping the good changes in DNA so that those
changes through time caused brains, eyes, ears, fingers, toes, blood,
nerves along with all that ...[text shortened]...
creature on top of that is quite a feat. One so great I do not believe
it to be true.
Kelly
At what point do you place a cutoff on the complexity of DNA mutations?
I mean, do you think DNA mutation can cause... tentacles? Or are those too complex? How about a simple mouth? Skin? Other organs of any kind?
Just so long as we're understanding each other - you are saying that DNA CAN cause complex changes in organisms, but it CAN'T cause ALL of the complexity we see today?
-JC
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by ChurlantClearly, complexity can increase in conversations. But is that complexity functional in this case? I don't think it is.
You are complicating my question...
At what point do you place a cutoff on the complexity of DNA mutations?
I mean, do you think DNA mutation can cause... tentacles? Or are those too complex? How about a simple mouth? Skin? Other organs of any kind?
Just so long as we're understanding each other - you are saying that DNA CAN cause complex changes in organisms, but it CAN'T cause ALL of the complexity we see today?
-JC
14 Jun 06
Originally posted by KellyJayCan you state clearly whether or not you accept that it is possible that complexity can increase even marginaly over time.
I'm saying that there can be small changes within DNA, there are
small changes within DNA! That does not translate into over time
DNA keeps the good and through natural selection causes the bad
to die off. This keeping the good changes in DNA so that those
changes through time caused brains, eyes, ears, fingers, toes, blood,
nerves along with all that ...[text shortened]...
creature on top of that is quite a feat. One so great I do not believe
it to be true.
Kelly
Now does anyone here have good examples of animals or crops which have been sucessfully bread via selective breading (not genetic modification) to produce changes so significant as to be considered new products or organs in the animals.
For example do any dairy cows produce milk that contains usefull substances that are not found in the normal cow population?
I know that many flowers for example have been bread into colours that did not exist in nature. Gold fish have been bread into varieties that have two tails instead of one. At what point do we call it a new organ?
14 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ChurlantDo you have an example where we start with a single cell life form
You are complicating my question...
At what point do you place a cutoff on the complexity of DNA mutations?
I mean, do you think DNA mutation can cause... tentacles? Or are those too complex? How about a simple mouth? Skin? Other organs of any kind?
Just so long as we're understanding each other - you are saying that DNA CAN cause complex changes in organisms, but it CAN'T cause ALL of the complexity we see today?
-JC
moving into a multiple cell one, that would be the easist to see? I
don’t mean where the move is a preprogrammed one as in birth,
since I have had other people try to use that as an example. Some
changes are natural parts of life, the point where they start building
life into something unique is quite a different story.
It is not an easy thing to create a device that must handle power and
code to function, the fact that physical components deal with a
balance that is in creditably painful to achieve. Seeing that the
evolutionist believers simply accept that all the parts of a human
could happen through evolutionary time without anything guiding
them; all forming relatively close to the same time while keeping the
necessary balances of energy and other requirements to function
while not robbing the other parts of the body of its necessary energy
and fuel requirements are just astronomical to me. Most
examinations that deal with the some of the more complicated parts
in a human where events must occur with perfect timing like
blood clotting are like watching a card shark stack the deck to achieve
what it is they wanted.
Kelly
14 Jun 06
Originally posted by KellyJayYou aren't answering my question - stop avoiding the point and just commit one way or the other.
Do you have an example where we start with a single cell life form
moving into a multiple cell one, that would be the easist to see? Kelly
Do you (or do you not) believe mutations within DNA/genetic coding can cause even limited increases in complexity?
If your answer is yes, please explain how you logically come to the conclusion that those complexities must remain limited.
-JC
14 Jun 06
Originally posted by KellyJayStop fluffing. Solid, real example or nothing.
Do you have an example where we start with a single cell life form
moving into a multiple cell one, that would be the easist to see? I
don’t mean where the move is a preprogrammed one as in birth,
since I have had other people try to use that as an example. Some
changes are natural parts of life, the point where they start building
life into something ...[text shortened]... lotting are like watching a card shark stack the deck to achieve
what it is they wanted.
Kelly
16 Jun 06
Originally posted by Churlant"Limited" is a vague word, so how can that be answered?
You aren't answering my question - stop avoiding the point and just commit one way or the other.
Do you (or do you not) believe mutations within DNA/genetic coding can cause even limited increases in complexity?
If your answer is yes, please explain how you logically come to the conclusion that those complexities must remain limited.
-JC
I do believe there are changes withn kinds/species that you can get
different types of a single life form, but the end result isn't again what
I have been maintaining doesn't happen, which is that one will become
something completely differrent. Something completely different as
a single cell creature moving into something along the lines of a worm
or a blade of grass. Which requires huge amounts of changes in
the DNA code to occur.
Kelly
16 Jun 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI have been maintaining that the added complexity was for adding
So, now that he's responded to this post, does anyone now know whether KellyJay "basically [agrees] that DNA mutation can lead to greater complexity, while also saying it can't become too complex?"
new body parts that were never here before. Example the creation
of a new system like the nervous system when none ever existed
before. I again grant you, that if you again make my argument for
me it is easier for you to dismiss it.
Kelly
16 Jun 06
Originally posted by KellyJaySponges. Each cell is an independant organism, but they tend to organism themselves into a multicellular organism, apparently spontaneously.
I gave you one, give me an example where we have seen a single
cell creature turn into a multi-celled creature when it wasn't already
programmed to do so.
Kelly
16 Jun 06
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy do you think single celled organisms are "completely different" from worms and grass? They're all cells. You start with cells, you end with cells, just like when you start with dogs, you end with dogs.
"Limited" is a vague word, so how can that be answered?
I do believe there are changes withn kinds/species that you can get
different types of a single life form, but the end result isn't again what
I have been maintaining doesn't happen, which is that one will become
something completely differrent. Something completely different as
a single cell crea ...[text shortened]... r a blade of grass. Which requires huge amounts of changes in
the DNA code to occur.
Kelly
16 Jun 06
Originally posted by KellyJayArgument? I'm simply pointing out that you deliberately avoided answering a direct question, like you do all the time.
I have been maintaining that the added complexity was for adding
new body parts that were never here before. Example the creation
of a new system like the nervous system when none ever existed
before. I again grant you, that if you again make my argument for
me it is easier for you to dismiss it.
Kelly