Spirituality
16 Aug 10
29 Aug 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe basics of a dog remains the same, there are differences yes, but you don't
Yet you seem to be comfortable with quite extreme changes such as the vast difference between the various breeds of dogs, or the differences between breeds of other domesticated animals.
see flying dogs or dogs with gills, or scales, cold blooded, and so on.
Kelly
29 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat are "the basics"? You seem to have chosen a set of attributes that you know no current breed of dogs has and say "look they don't have these". But how and why did you choose those attributes?
The basics of a dog remains the same, there are differences yes, but you don't
see flying dogs or dogs with gills, or scales, cold blooded, and so on.
Kelly
Whenever we discuss this issue you always resort to a vague claim of "no large changes" where "large" is left vague and undefined. You never actually explain what extent of change is possible and what is not and why there is a barrier after a certain amount of change.
For example, is there a limit to the height of dog breeds? If we kept breeding taller dogs, would we reach a limit? What would that limit be?
30 Aug 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe define dogs....by...those things in common with all dogs.
What are "the basics"? You seem to have chosen a set of attributes that you know no current breed of dogs has and say "look they don't have these". But how and why did you choose those attributes?
Whenever we discuss this issue you always resort to a vague claim of "no large changes" where "large" is left vague and undefined. You never actually explain w ...[text shortened]... eds? If we kept breeding taller dogs, would we reach a limit? What would that limit be?
Kelly
30 Aug 10
Originally posted by Arctic PenguinYou just repeated what everyone else has said except you did it a little better,
KellyJay, it sounds like you're puzzled about how a single gene mutation could possibly cause an organism that couldn't sense light previously to suddenly gain this trait. One of the aspects of biology that I find most beautiful, and one that is often the most surprising to those who don't have extensive backgrounds in the biological sciences, is how ...[text shortened]... its parent bacteria which has no way of sensing the direction of the puddle's surface.
the issues I have are still the same. You seem to think that changing something
that at one time did not have anything to do with light now becomes something
that does with just a couple of changes in DNA. So instead of seeking out levels
of vitamins part of it can simply have a small change and now it can sense light,
and with that ability make choices on some level that are useful.
So before this transformation light was a completely unknown subject, never
entered into flow of information of the life in question. So now we have this spot
on our life form that is sensitive to light, and in a good way, nothing that would
cause damage or drain resources. With this new found ability to sense light it also
can now use that knowledge to make decisions on some level. Sort of like someone
just sticking a new video card into a computer, does not matter that the manufacture
has never dealt with your computers operating system before it will just work,
and work well. Nothing will short out; all information gathered will be understood,
no damage if the card slides in does not line up with your mother boards slots,
and your monitor would grasp what is going on too, the proper resolution, colors,
it will work, because it is a new video card what could go wrong?
Seriously?
Kelly
30 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJayExactly. So your argument makes no sense. You essentially said: "All dogs are dogs, there are no dogs that are not dogs". A rather meaningless claim.
We define dogs....by...those things in common with all dogs.
Kelly
But you implied: No dog will ever through evolution, no longer be a dog. And that is obviously false. You even admit that a dog might be related to a wolf and thus it is possible that through evolution we have a dog descended from a wolf that is not a wolf.
So if by 'basics' you mean 'that which defines it as a species', then you already admit your own claim to be false.
30 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonKelly?
“….If you have several systems working together and start allowing
some amount of changes in all or some of those systems, things will break down
they will not work as they should,…”
You are obviously referring here to changes only caused by [b]disadvantageous mutations.
Obviously, that is not what I was talking about!
I was obviously tal ...[text shortened]... o be an advantageous mutation that does NOT cause something to not work properly? -Right?[/b]
I would like you to answer this question because it would show you your strange misconception you have developed here.
You have seemed to have conjured up this strange belief that all evolutionary changes must, somehow, constitute a degradation -where on earth did you get that from?
So I ask you again the question that you have not answered:
Is possible for there to be an advantageous mutation that does NOT cause something to NOT work properly?
If you answer “yes” to the above then that should make you see your error.
30 Aug 10
1 edit
Hot tea never changes into cold tea...I admit you can get a small decline in temperature if you wait a few minutes but never once have I burn't my mouth on a scolding cup of tea only to find the next minute it's completely freezing!...still manages to be very hot!
It must be the case that someone switches it when I'm not looking 😕
30 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI believe you can add a letter inside a line of code and it not cause a system to
Kelly?
I would like you to answer this question because it would show you your strange misconception you have developed here.
You have seemed to have conjured up this strange belief that all evolutionary changes must, somehow, constitute a degradation -where on earth did you get that from?
So I ask you again the question that you have not an ...[text shortened]... NOT work properly?
If you answer “yes” to the above then that should make you see your error.
crash, I do not believe you can randomly add letters of code into a working
program and not have that program crash, UNLESS you design it too.
Kelly
30 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJayWell you are incorrect in your beliefs. If you randomly add letters of code into a working program, it may or may not crash (depending on what you mean by 'crash'😉.
I believe you can add a letter inside a line of code and it not cause a system to
crash, I do not believe you can randomly add letters of code into a working
program and not have that program crash, UNLESS you design it too.
Kelly
There is always a small chance that you might change Microsoft Word, into Microsoft Excel via random changes.
But typical computer programs are not a good analogy for life. You expect a computer program to perform a very specific task in a very exacting manner. If you remove that expectation, you will find that most programs will run without 'crashing' even with large amounts of their code changed randomly. Of course there is a chance you will cause a crash, so if we use the process that evolution does, and change one letter at a time and test for crashes, then go back a step and try again every time a crash occurs, then we can practically guarantee that a large degree of change is possible without crashing in the final product. It may even be less crash prone than the original!
30 Aug 10
Perhaps I can help.
The Story of Creation, as interpreted by ATY
Some time around 10,000 BCE - 6,000 BCE God created the universe. He did so lining up all the photons in elaborate patterns which modern atheist scientists interpret as meaning an older universe. They are simply blinded by their ideology.
We know this was the beginning of Creation because it's the beginning of history and civilization. Before history, there is no proof of anything having taken place. Modern atheist scientists try to reconstruct a model of what could have happened assuming no God exists, but they are blinded by their ideology. Fossils, photons, etc are arranged for very good reasons, but atheist scientists are blinded to the true reasons and make up elaborate stories to promote their atheism.
At this time, God created all the non-human organisms according to their kinds. Kinds are things like canines, felines, whales, fish, monkeys, raptors, rodents etc. the original Kinds were perfect, as God made them, but since Adam took of the fruit of the Tree etc. the world has been accursed, and they have devolved.
Devolution explains all so-called "evolution" the Darwinists can demonstrate in front of human beings. It is devolution within the kind. The various breeds of dog are devolved super-canines for example, as can be shown with their breed specific genetic illnesses. The prototype of the Canine Kind was a biological marvel such as no longer exists on Earth. Likewise with all other organisms. Adam's sin devolved everything to it's current miserable state.
I think that's the Abrahamic YEC story, best I can piece together.
31 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou can add letters, lots of letters, but if that is the process that random letters
Well you are incorrect in your beliefs. If you randomly add letters of code into a working program, it may or may not crash (depending on what you mean by 'crash'😉.
There is always a small chance that you might change Microsoft Word, into Microsoft Excel via random changes.
But typical computer programs are not a good analogy for life. You expect a comp le without crashing in the final product. It may even be less crash prone than the original!
are added and that always happen over time, you will not end up with a new
improved program, it will error out and stop functioning. Actually it is more than
just adding letters, because random changes mean that you could lose some
too, again this will not cause a program to remain healthy.
Kelly