The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Son Goku

Wicknight wrote:

Neo-Darwin Evolution Theory says what it says. One can debate whether or not it is accurate until the cows come in. But to misrepresent what it actually says in an attempt to discredit the theory, is pointless.

All true, but consider the following. What Neo-Darwinian evolution actually says is very involved, with a historical context behind most of its claims. To even speak about it correctly means you have to speak in correct scientific terms. Since creationism can't be made to fit these terms, they'd also end up with nothing to say. In essence to defend creationism you have to distort evolution. Not distorting evolution requires moving the playing field to something creationism can't reach.

To take something I'm more familiar with, the claim that Iron was just made and doesn't come from stellar burning. If you weren't to distort stellar theory you'll literally just end up with precise, terse statements that match the evidence and that's it. Not distorting it involves accepting that it matches all evidence. If a creationist does this they've lost the argument.

You can rule out complete silliness or the over blown apocalyptic language, but can't get rid of the need to distort the opposing opinion.
Or at least that is what I think.

Asiaprod

Son Goku wrote:

You can rule out complete silliness or the over blown apocalyptic language, but can't get rid of the need to distort the opposing opinion.
Or at least that is what I think.

In addition, I believe the real value in this thread comes from rebutting these distortions, no matter how tiresome it is. Readers very quickly see where the distortions occur. In my books this is one of the most informative thread on the Boards. Think of all the science that is being taught here. I could never learn all this in real life in such an enjoyable manner
The other option would be to close the thread or force JC to give it up and not post to enlighten us all. What would I do with all the spare time that would create?:) I'd have to get a life and lose my overtime moding allowance:eek:, and I work hard for the money.

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote:

In addition, I believe the real value in this thread comes from rebutting these distortions, no matter how tiresome it is. Readers very quickly see where the distortions occur. In my books this is one of the most informative thread on the Boards. Think of all the science that is being taught here. I could never learn all this in real life in such an enjoyable manner
The other option would be to close the thread or force JC to give it up and not post to enlighten us all. What would I do with all the spare time that would create?:) I'd have to get a life and lose my overtime moding allowance:eek:, and I work hard for the money.

I tend to agree. Unfortunately, JC has hardly posted a new distortion in weeks now! Bring us a new Creationist, this one's broken....

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ciaran500

Scofflaw wrote:

I tend to agree. Unfortunately, JC has hardly posted a new distortion in weeks now! Bring us a new Creationist, this one's broken....

cordially,
Scofflaw

He's not broken, just run out of places to copy from

Ekancone

Fine, i promise not to call him a liar again. But i have enjoyed this thread up until about 3 weeks ago. Now it is just boring. Much like JC's theory of evolution - no new information is being added.

Scofflaw

daithifleming wrote:

Fine, i promise not to call him a liar again. But i have enjoyed this thread up until about 3 weeks ago. Now it is just boring. Much like JC's theory of evolution - no new information is being added.

Yes, actually that seems to be a large part of the problem. He doesn't seem to be able to do anything about the frameshift mutation except claim that it doesn't actually mean what it clearly means - mutation can add new and useful information to the genome.

So far he's dredged up the silly 'combinatorial space' argument, which surely even he can see is contradicted by his other claim - that the frameshift mutation makes use of a lot of the existing sequence. Indeed, I know that he knows they contradict each other, because he himself has repeatedly denied throughout this thread that the second argument has any validity, and consistently pretended that proteins form by haphazard assembly of random amino acids.

All of which is hardly surprising, since all of his arguments, even where they accidentally contain some small measure of truth, are essentially just masks worn by the real argument - that evolution contradicts Genesis. As long as JC is persuaded that the Bible trumps science, the argument he picks to use against evolution is always 'true', because it concords with Genesis - which is the essential honesty of JC's position.

Personally, I think we can take it, now that sufficient time has elapsed for JC to come up with a decent, or even half-decent, refutation of the frameshift evidence, that mutation can, and does, add useful new information to the genome, and has been observed to do so.

My original intention was to follow on from there to discuss the rest of evolution. Realistically, there's still a lot to play for, but I'd prefer to wait until JC feels up to disputing every inch.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Originally Posted by J C
If Evolution were true, biochemists could remove small parts of the constituent proteins within the cascade…..and it would still ‘work’ ……..but this is NOT what happens …as Dr Miller has himself confirmed “if we take away part of this system, we're in trouble”.

Wicknight
No it wouldn't work because evolution doesn't "add small parts", and the reverse of evolution isn't removing small parts

You know this JC because it has been explained to you. Evolution doesn't add, it changes.

OK then if we ‘change’ small parts of the Cascade it still WON’T work!!!:eek:

Whatever about your semantics……the Evolutionary ‘changes’ that supposedly gradually produced the Blood Clotting Cascade would have to be predominantly ADDITIVE if it supposedly evolved from no clotting mechanism in the single cell from which all living organisms are supposedly descended.:eek:

……but of course, at this stage, both you and I know that spontaneous macro-Evolution is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!:D


Wicknight
Evolution theory predicted that we should find non-clotting fibrinogen like proteins in invertebrate life forms, because the theory says that clotting fibrinogen genes evolved from the combination of these.

And strangely enough we do ... a theory making a prediction that is later found in reality ... sounds like science to me.

So-called ‘Evolution Theory’ will 'predict' almost anything……and so it isn’t strictly within the realm of science at all!!!!:eek:

Anyway, the first evidence I would expect to see for a mechanism that supposedly gradually changed various proteins to eventually form the Blood Clotting Cascade is a series of ever simpler FUNCTIONAL cascades going right back to when the supposed evolution of the cascade supposedly started.

Unfortunately for Evolution, we don’t see this in nature and we can’t artificially produce it……so we can only assume that it is an unfounded religious belief on the part of Evolutionists that it occurred!!!:eek:


Wicknight
As I said evolution is not about adding things, and the reverse of evolution is not about taking things away.

If Evolution is about 'changing things' then the reverse of evolution is about 'reverse-changing things'…….and the Blood Clotting Mechanism must still remain functional right through all of these reversed ‘changes’ back to simple non-clotting fibrinogen or the organism will bleed to death!!!

This is simply not observed to be the case!!!!:cool:


Originally Posted by J C
Not so, most proteins are totally UNIQUE…..and combining them makes BOTH proteins functionally USELESS!!!

Wicknught
That is untrue, as has been pointed out to you before

Please give me examples of this supposed mechanism of combining proteins in action!!!:)


Originally Posted by Wicknight
lying makes baby Jesus cry.

Originally Posted by J C
Jesus Christ is NOT a helpless baby…..He is the Sovereign God of the Universe.
……He does sometimes cry …….at the folly of people trying to live without Him!!!
……..and at the Evolutionists who do logical contortions that would leave Harry Houdini tied up in knots, in order to deny Him!!!

Wicknight

Ummm ... did I hit a nerve ...

My nerves are fine……..

…….but I would caution you that God has said that He will not be mocked!!!


With loving concern for your eternal welfare.

J C:)

robindch

Sixty seconds in, Whoopi Goldberg curveballs a creationist:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fLnCDTWB2S0

J C

Originally Posted by JC
My 'jokey denials' are of Evolutionist myths....and not facts!!

bluewolf wrote:

Fixed.

OK!!!:D

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

......I don't want to hear things about evolution that are incorrect, or deliberately misconstrued, or downright mendacious.......

cordially,
Scofflaw

.....how about the truth then ..........that Evolution from chemicals to man never happened!!!:eek:

Love

J C

J C

Acid_Violet wrote:

Quote of the day!


Hang on, we've got another winner!

......and I love you TOO!!!:eek:

Ekancone

J C wrote:

.....how about the truth then ..........that Evolution from chemicals to man never happened!!!:eek:

Love

J C

You are wrong!!!!! :rolleyes: :eek:

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
If Evolution were true, biochemists could remove small parts of the constituent proteins within the cascade…..and it would still ‘work’ ……..but this is NOT what happens …as Dr Miller has himself confirmed “if we take away part of this system, we're in trouble”.

Wicknight
No it wouldn't work because evolution doesn't "add small parts", and the reverse of evolution isn't removing small parts

You know this JC because it has been explained to you. Evolution doesn't add, it changes.

OK then if we ‘change’ small parts of the Cascade it still WON’T work!!!:eek:

Whatever about your semantics……the Evolutionary ‘changes’ that supposedly gradually produced the Blood Clotting Cascade would have to be predominantly ADDITIVE if it supposedly evolved from no clotting mechanism in the single cell from which all living organisms are supposedly descended.:eek:

……but of course, at this stage, both you and I know that spontaneous macro-Evolution is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!:D

Let us amuse ourselves for a moment by demonstrating the falsity of this argument of yours.

Take a chemical process in a cell that produces a weak clotting agent in large quantities thus:

A -> B (weak clotting agent)

and another that produces a strong clotting agent in very small quantities, because there are very small quantities of the necessary precursor C:

C -> D (strong clotting agent)

Now take a mutation that produces an enzyme that turns B into C - suddenly we have a chain thus:

A -> B -> C -> D

Now the Creationist, on seeing this, says "aha, irreducible complexity - we cannot remove any step from that process!".

And the Creationist is wrong - or rather his contention is meaningless, because it contains the hidden rider "and have what we currently have", which makes the statement tautological.

JC wrote:

Wicknight wrote:

Ummm ... did I hit a nerve ...

My nerves are fine……..

…….but I would caution you that God has said that He will not be mocked!!!

So sensitive...combined with omniscience, no wonder he's wrathful so much of the time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Wicknight
I take issue when he posts, falsely, what the scientific theories of evolution state, and then attempts to debate against this warped inaccurate version of evolution.

…..and I would take issue with myself…….IF I was doing as you claim!!!

I try to be as fair as possible to Evolution……but quite frankly there is little substance to the idea ….and even LESS science!!!!:D


Wicknight
Firstly most posters here spend a great deal of time attempting to first point out why JC's representation of evolution is incorrect, before they even get on to debating the actual theory of evolution.

Just go and present the Theory of Evolution then……if it is as robust as you claim it should be obvious to all that it is occurring!!!

Your REAL problem isn’t little old me……it is the Theory of Evolution ITSELF….. which is essentially an unfounded faith-based belief that everyone has evolved from Pondslime.

You could ask for more empathy to be shown towards your faith, I suppose…….and I would be prepared to do so……..but then you don’t admit that it is a faith in the first place……so I guess I will have to continue to use science to prove that your Evolutionist beliefs are unfounded scientifically……and therefore in the realm of religious dogma!!!!:)


Wicknight
This does a disservice to the spirit of the thread, which was whether or not Christianity and evolution can be reconciled.
The first thing that needs to be established before we go reconciling Evolution with anything is whether is scientifically valid, in the first place………….and so far the evidence is overwhelmingly in the NEGATIVE on this question!!!:eek:


Son Goku
What Neo-Darwinian evolution actually says is very involved, with a historical context behind most of its claims. To even speak about it correctly means you have to speak in correct scientific terms.

…..all bow and be silent before the Darwinian ‘Holy Grail’!!!!!!:eek:

……as Ali G might say “respect man……respect!!!”:D


Scofflaw
He doesn't seem to be able to do anything about the frameshift mutation except claim that it doesn't actually mean what it clearly means - mutation can add new and useful information to the genome.

I have repeatedly explained that frame shift mutations ‘leverage’ EXISTING information ……and they therefore don’t explain how all of this information arose IN THE FIRST PLACE.


Scofflaw
So far he's dredged up the silly 'combinatorial space' argument, which surely even he can see is contradicted by his other claim - that the frameshift mutation makes use of a lot of the existing sequence. Indeed, I know that he knows they contradict each other,

The useless combinatorial space is indeed massive……..but living systems have been designed in such a way that frameshifts can ‘leverage’; existing information to produce additional variety. Some frameshifts are like changing gears in a machine, which starts a different function……..and others are like damaged complex mechanisms which do bizarre things because they are DAMAGED!!!

Either way, frameshifts don’t explain how the genetic information and the cellular structures originated in the first place. Changing gears and breaking parts are NOT mechanisms that produce functional machines……such machines are always produced by an ultimate application of Intelligent Design…..
,,,,,,,and ditto with living ‘machines’!!!!:cool:

Loving me..... loving you

JC:)

J C

daithifleming wrote:

You are wrong!!!!! :rolleyes: :eek:

It was a miracle then!!!:D

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

Let us amuse ourselves for a moment by demonstrating the falsity of this argument of yours.

Take a chemical process in a cell that produces a weak clotting agent in large quantities thus:

A -> B (weak clotting agent)

and another that produces a strong clotting agent in very small quantities, because there are very small quantities of the necessary precursor C:

C -> D (strong clotting agent)

Now take a mutation that produces an enzyme that turns B into C - suddenly we have a chain thus:

A -> B -> C -> D

Now the Creationist, on seeing this, says "aha, irreducible complexity - we cannot remove any step from that process!".

A Creationist wouldn't say so IF the situation that you described above ACTUALLY occurred.........but the way proteins are observed to be formed and to work ISN'T as described by you above!!!!:D

Scofflaw wrote:

So sensitive...combined with omniscience, no wonder he's (God's) wrathful so much of the time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So sovereign, so omnipotent .......and yet so LOVING that He saved a wretch like ME!!!!:D

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Wicknight
I take issue when he posts, falsely, what the scientific theories of evolution state, and then attempts to debate against this warped inaccurate version of evolution.

…..and I would take issue with myself…….IF I was doing as you claim!!!

I try to be as fair as possible to Evolution……but quite frankly there is little substance to the idea ….and NO science!!!!:D

Certainly there is no science to be found in what you erroneously believe to be evolution.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Firstly most posters here spend a great deal of time attempting to first point out why JC's representation of evolution is incorrect, before they even get on to debating the actual theory of evolution.

Just go and present the Theory of Evolution then……if it is as robust as you claim it should be obvious to all that it is occurring!!!

I think that's probably a worthwhile exercise. However, as Son Goku points out, the theory is by no means 'obvious'.

J C wrote:

Your REAL problem isn’t little old me……it is the Theory of Evolution ITSELF….. which is essentially an unfounded faith-based belief that everyone has evolved from Pondslime.

Hardly - after all, even pondslime had to evolve.

JC wrote:

Scofflaw
He doesn't seem to be able to do anything about the frameshift mutation except claim that it doesn't actually mean what it clearly means - mutation can add new and useful information to the genome.

I have repeatedly explained that frame shift mutations ‘leverage’ EXISTING information ……and they therefore don’t explain how all of this information arose IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Well, I think you're on much more solid ground there, except of course that abiogenesis and evolution are separate theories, as we all know you know.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
So far he's dredged up the silly 'combinatorial space' argument, which surely even he can see is contradicted by his other claim - that the frameshift mutation makes use of a lot of the existing sequence. Indeed, I know that he knows they contradict each other,

The useless combinatorial space is indeed massive……..but living systems have been designed in such a way that frameshifts can ‘leverage’; existing information to produce additional variety. Some frameshifts are like changing gears in a machine, which starts a different function……..and others are like damaged complex mechanisms which do bizarre things because they are DAMAGED!!!

Either way, frameshifts don’t explain how the genetic information and the cellular structures originated in the first place. Changing gears and breaking parts are NOT mechanisms that produce functional machines……they are always produced by an ultimate application of Intelligent Design…..
,,,,,,,and ditto with living ‘machines’!!!!:cool:

One day, of course, you might like to try and prove design, rather than lazily assuming it.

J C wrote:

Loving me..... loving you

JC:)

Creepy...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

The Creationist wouldn't say so IF the situation that you described above ACTUALLY occurred.........but the way proteins are observed to be formed and to work ISN'T as described by you above!!!!:D

Well, what I described isn't a description of 'how proteins are formed and work', so that isn't an issue. If, on the other hand, you can prove by observation that the above sequence has never occurred I'm all ears.

J C wrote:

So sovereign, so omnipotent .......and yet so LOVING that He saved a wretch like ME!!!!:D

I couldn't possibly comment. I'm glad it works for you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

but the way proteins are observed to be formed and to work ISN'T as described by you above!!!!:D

Actually that is the way some proteins have been observed to evolve (as has been pointed out to you before).

I suggest you read up on proteins.

Of course you have been told this before and obviously you didn't, so I won't hold my breath.

J C

Originally Posted by Scofflaw
Let us amuse ourselves for a moment by demonstrating the falsity of this argument of yours.

Take a chemical process in a cell that produces a weak clotting agent in large quantities thus:

A -> B (weak clotting agent)

and another that produces a strong clotting agent in very small quantities, because there are very small quantities of the necessary precursor C:

C -> D (strong clotting agent)

Now take a mutation that produces an enzyme that turns B into C - suddenly we have a chain thus:

A -> B -> C -> D

Now the Creationist, on seeing this, says "aha, irreducible complexity - we cannot remove any step from that process!".

Originally Posted by J C
The Creationist wouldn't say so IF the situation that you described above ACTUALLY occurred.........but the way proteins are observed to be formed and to work ISN'T as described by you above!!!!

Scofflaw
Well, what I described isn't a description of 'how proteins are formed and work', so that isn't an issue.

It is an issue IF you are claiming that your sequence explains the evolution of proteins......but I agree with you that it DOESN'T!!!!

........but then again, NOTHING explains how proteins were formed except Direct Creation!!!:D

Wicknight wrote:

Actually that is the way some proteins have been observed to evolve (as has been pointed out to you before).

I suggest you read up on proteins.

Of course you have been told this before and obviously you didn't, so I won't hold my breath.

Wicknight talk to Scofflaw !!!


Over and out ...... "from Russia with love"!!!:D

J C

J C

Originally Posted by Wicknight
Firstly most posters here spend a great deal of time attempting to first point out why JC's representation of evolution is incorrect, before they even get on to debating the actual theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by
Just go and present the Theory of Evolution then……if it is as robust as you claim it should be obvious to all that it is occurring!!!

Scofflaw wrote:

I think that's probably a worthwhile exercise. However, as Son Goku points out, the theory is by no means 'obvious'.

As the T-Shirt says.....

JUST DO IT!!!!!

BTW I agree that Evolution isn't 'obvious'.........because it 'obviously' isn't .....i.e. it DOESN'T exist!!!!

Scofflaw wrote:

Certainly there is no science to be found in what you erroneously believe to be evolution.

There is no science in Evolution full stop!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
Your REAL problem isn’t little old me……it is the Theory of Evolution ITSELF….. which is essentially an unfounded faith-based belief that everyone has evolved from Pondslime.

Scofflaw wrote:

Hardly - after all, even pondslime had to evolve.

Here we go again with more of your 'semantics antics'!!!
The substantive point that I was making is that the Theory of Evolution is essentially an unfounded faith-based belief, that everyone has evolved from something that LOOKED LIKE Pondslime!!!!
.....and your explanation as to where 'the something that looked like Pondslime' came from is the following unsatisfactory answer filled with 'weasel words'.....

Scofflaw
Well, I think you're on much more solid ground there, except of course that abiogenesis and evolution are separate theories, as we all know you know.


Scofflaw
One day, of course, you might like to try and prove design, rather than lazily assuming it.

It's already been proven by the ID Proponents!!!!

.....and all Evolutionists would know that by now, if some Evolutionsts weren't so fond of preventing ID papers being read by other Evolutionists!!!:D

Equally most Evolutionists behave like ID Virgins anyway........manfully keeping themselves pure in thought and deed, in total fidelity to Evolution!!!!

Most would feel utterly violated if they were to ever be exposed to the truth as discovered by ID research!!!

Indeed, many Evolutionists don metaphorical 'chastity belts' .........over both their eyes .... and their genitals......(so that they can 'be sure to be pure') whenever they encounter published ID research!!!!:D

With Pure Love!!!

J C

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by Scofflaw
Let us amuse ourselves for a moment by demonstrating the falsity of this argument of yours.

Take a chemical process in a cell that produces a weak clotting agent in large quantities thus:

A -> B (weak clotting agent)

and another that produces a strong clotting agent in very small quantities, because there are very small quantities of the necessary precursor C:

C -> D (strong clotting agent)

Now take a mutation that produces an enzyme that turns B into C - suddenly we have a chain thus:

A -> B -> C -> D

Now the Creationist, on seeing this, says "aha, irreducible complexity - we cannot remove any step from that process!".

Originally Posted by J C
The Creationist wouldn't say so IF the situation that you described above ACTUALLY occurred.........but the way proteins are observed to be formed and to work ISN'T as described by you above!!!!

Scofflaw
Well, what I described isn't a description of 'how proteins are formed and work', so that isn't an issue.

It is an issue IF you are claiming that your sequence explains the evolution of proteins......but I agree with you that it DOESN'T!!!!

Sigh. It is one possible example of how a sequence like clotting could evolve. It is not 'evolution of proteins', because what is evolving is the sequence. Proteins 'evolve' by mutation and selection.

For example, the nylon-digesting enzyme is a protein. Currently, it's a poor nylon-digester. If the bacterium starts living on nylon as a substrate, there will be a selective advantage in having the best nylon digestion, since the bacterial strain that has it will be best able to use the available nylon.

To improve the nylon enzyme requires only a substitution of one amino acid in the protein by another that improves the fit between nylon and the enzyme. The type of mutation necessary to substitute one amino acid for another in a protein chain is a point mutation of one DNA base - the most common type of mutation. In any given generation, we can expect a good number of such point mutations. As usual, most of them will have little effect, some will be deleterious to the efficiency of the enzyme, and some should improve it.

Any mutation that does improve the nylon enzyme will be found preferentially in the following generations of bacteria, because any bacterium that has that mutation will have more available energy for reproduction, and so will its offspring.

After several generations living on nylon, we should expect the efficiency of the nylon enzyme to have increased quite a bit from its current 11-12%. Not only that, but because genomes are passed on wholesale between generations, any other mutations found in the best nylon-eating strains will also be passed on, assuming their effects are not both negative and large enough to outweigh the advantage of improved nylon digestion. Thus, if the best nylon-eating strain also happens to have picked up a mutation that causes it to have (say) longer cilia as well, then the dominant element in the population will be long-cilia as well as efficient nylon digesters.

Out of such incremental, and sometimes irrelevant changes, we can see how easy it is to produce a new species of bacterium. The advantage provided by the single ability to efficiently digest a new, plentiful, and initially uncompeted food source allows all kinds of other mutations to be carried alongside because any negative effects they have are outweighed by the huge competitive advantage of that ability.

What we should have, then, is a rapid diversification of a rapidly expanding population - a diversification event. The geological record is full of such events.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote:

Sigh. It is one possible example of how a sequence like clotting could evolve. It is not 'evolution of proteins', because what is evolving is the sequence. Proteins 'evolve' by mutation and selection.

For example, the nylon-digesting enzyme is a protein. Currently, it's a poor nylon-digester. If the bacterium starts living on nylon as a substrate, there will be a selective advantage in having the best nylon digestion, since the bacterial strain that has it will be best able to use the available nylon.

To improve the nylon enzyme requires only a substitution of one amino acid in the protein by another that improves the fit between nylon and the enzyme. The type of mutation necessary to substitute one amino acid for another in a protein chain is a point mutation of one DNA base - the most common type of mutation. In any given generation, we can expect a good number of such point mutations. As usual, most of them will have little effect, some will be deleterious to the efficiency of the enzyme, and some should improve it.

Any mutation that does improve the nylon enzyme will be found preferentially in the following generations of bacteria, because any bacterium that has that mutation will have more available energy for reproduction, and so will its offspring.

After several generations living on nylon, we should expect the efficiency of the nylon enzyme to have increased quite a bit from its current 11-12%. Not only that, but because genomes are passed on wholesale between generations, any other mutations found in the best nylon-eating strains will also be passed on, assuming their effects are not both negative and large enough to outweigh the advantage of improved nylon digestion. Thus, if the best nylon-eating strain also happens to have picked up a mutation that causes it to have (say) longer cilia as well, then the dominant element in the population will be long-cilia as well as efficient nylon digesters.

Out of such incremental, and sometimes irrelevant changes, we can see how easy it is to produce a new species of bacterium. The advantage provided by the single ability to efficiently digest a new, plentiful, and initially uncompeted food source allows all kinds of other mutations to be carried alongside because any negative effects they have are outweighed by the huge competitive advantage of that ability.

What we should have, then, is a rapid diversification of a rapidly expanding population - a diversification event. The geological record is full of such events.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Your speculative account of the 'knicker eating bacterium' is so full of could haves, would haves and should haves.....that it reminds me of the Rugby Match in Paris tonight!!!:eek:

......unfortunately for Evolution, the old 'Knickers Muncher' is just an example of a frame shift 'leveraging' an infinitesimal fraction of the bacterium's existing information base.....and so it is actually an example of micro-Evolution in action!!!:D

.....and as I have already pointed out, such events are to be expected in complex living organisms that have been Intelligently Designed to exploit and adapt to environmental changes and opportunities........but frame shifts cannot explain how these organisms developed their vast information bases in the first place!!!:D

The Evolutionist fallacy is like someone seeing a particularly sophisticated Robot 'adapting' to environmental stimulii.....and then concluding that such 'adaptation' was the mechanism which produced the Robot, in the first place!!!:D

Lovingly

J C

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Your speculative account of the 'knicker eating bacterium' is full of could haves, would haves and should haves.....

Yes, that is because it is speculative. Hopefully it's not too hard to follow, though.

J C wrote:

......but the old 'Knickers Muncher' is just an example of a frame shift 'leveraging' an infinitesimal fraction of the bacterium's existing information base.....and so it is actually an example of micro-Evolution in action!!!:D

OK, interesting new definition of 'micro-evolution' there. I think I was reasonably clear on how after the frameshift, point mutations could easily produce improved versions of the nylon enzyme by changing random amino acids.

J C wrote:

.....and as I have already pointed out such events are to be expected in complex living organisms that have been Intelligently Designed to exploit environmental changes and opportunities........but frame shifts cannot explain how these organisms developed their vast information bases in the first place!!!:D

And, I have to remind you once again, evolution does not attempt to. Evolution can explain how changes in the genetic information base lead to the diversity we see today, but does not cover how that information base arose initially. That is the speculative topic of abiogenesis, separate from evolution.

Let me state it again - Genesis explains both the origin and the form of life. Evolution does not - it explains only the form. Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life, and does not form part of the Theory of Evolution.

Abiogenesis is certainly part of the "evolutionary worldview", but it's not part of the Theory of Evolution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Giblet

J C wrote:

Your REAL problem isn’t little old me……it is the Theory of Evolution ITSELF….. which is essentially an unfounded faith-based belief that everyone has evolved from Pondslime.


JC:)

Ah they age old adage, that if faith can be undermined by science, what better way to level the playing field, by referring to evolution as a faith.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
Your speculative account of the 'knicker eating bacterium' is full of could haves, would haves and should haves.....

Scofflaw
Yes, that is because it is speculative. Hopefully it's not too hard to follow, though.

The salient point is that your statements about the ’evolution’ of the 'knicker eating bacterium' is speculation on your part…..and completely unfounded speculation, at that!!!:eek:

It is, like the rest of Evolutionary Mythology……easy enough to follow……..but logically and scientifically invalid!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
......but the old 'Knickers Muncher' is just an example of a frame shift 'leveraging' an infinitesimal fraction of the bacterium's existing information base.....and so it is actually an example of micro-Evolution in action!!!

Scofflaw
OK, interesting new definition of 'micro-evolution' there. I think I was reasonably clear on how after the frameshift, point mutations could easily produce improved versions of the nylon enzyme by changing random amino acids.

Both frame shifts and recombinant gene jumbling during sexual reproduction CONTINUOUSLY produce traits that are new and (sometimes) beneficial…..but these mechanisms work by ‘leveraging’ the existing genetic information ‘platform’ of the organisms concerned……and they are NOT the mythical macro-Evolutionary process that supposedly changed Pondscum into Man!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
.....and as I have already pointed out such events are to be expected in complex living organisms that have been Intelligently Designed to exploit environmental changes and opportunities........but frame shifts cannot explain how these organisms developed their vast information bases in the first place!!!

Scofflaw
And, I have to remind you once again, evolution does not attempt to. Evolution can explain how changes in the genetic information base lead to the diversity we see today, but does not cover how that information base arose initially. That is the speculative topic of abiogenesis, separate from evolution

Could I then re-state my point as follows:-
Events such as frame shifts and genetic recombination, are to be expected in complex living organisms that have been Intelligently Designed to adapt to environmental changes and opportunities........but frame shifts or recombination cannot explain how these organisms supposedly developed their vast information bases along the supposed continuum between Pondscum and Man.

As I have previously said, the Evolutionist fallacy is like someone observing a particularly sophisticated Robot 'adapting' to environmental stimulii.....and then concluding that such 'adaptation' was the mechanism which produced the Robot, in the first place!!!:eek:


Originally Posted by J C
Your REAL problem isn’t little old me……it is the Theory of Evolution ITSELF….. which is essentially an unfounded faith-based belief that everyone has evolved from Pondslime.

Giblet
Ah the age old adage, that if faith can be undermined by science, what better way to level the playing field, by referring to evolution as a faith.

Faith could be either undermined or verified by Science!!

The Evolutionist Faith is essentially an unfounded belief that everyone has evolved from Pondslime……

….while the Judeo-Christian Faith in the Direct Creation of the Universe and all life therein, is scientifically verifiable !!:eek:

Love

J C

Giblet

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C

The Evolutionist Faith is essentially an unfounded belief that everyone has evolved from Pondslime……

….while the Judeo-Christian Faith is based on the scientifically verifiable fact that the Universe and all life was directly created !!:eek:

I don't think you know what any of that means.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
The Evolutionist Faith is essentially an unfounded belief that everyone has evolved from Pondslime……

….while the Judeo-Christian Faith in the Direct Creation of the Universe and all life therein, is scientifically verifiable !!

Giblet wrote:

I don't think you know what any of that means.

I'm an EXPERT ...... get me out of here!!!!:eek:

Love

J C

Asiaprod

J C wrote:

I'm an EXPERT ...... get me out of here!!!!:eek:

Love

J C

What exactly are you and expert in, you have to help me here:)

J C

Asiaprod wrote:

What exactly are you and expert in, you have to help me here:)

.....now there's a thing!!!:D

I have had sufficient expertise available to me to demolish the Theory of Macro-Evolution, almost single-handedly, on this thread!!!:D

.....and moving 'quickly' on to the other 50% of the thread title (Prophecy)......

........are you 'Rapture Ready', Asiaprod??

Love

J C