• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

6days

6days

New member
Greg Jennings said:
Meanwhile you'll never explain how lions survive eating only grass.
Click to expand...
Funny how evolutionists think bacteria can evolve into biologists yet don't believe a lion can evolve a new diet.
Greg Jennings said:
Or how dinosaurs and all animals got in the ark.
Click to expand...
Simple... God brought them to the ark. If you think there wasn't enough room, you are wrong. We can discuss this if you wish, but there was plenty of room for all the various kinds along with room for food storage.
Greg Jennings said:
Or how all the water got there to begin with.
Click to expand...
How the water got on earth? Or how there was enough water to flood the earth? Everyone knows the earth has been under water. The only difference between my beliefs and yours is time frame. Evidence is consistent with God's Word.
Greg Jennings said:
Or how old the universe is.
Click to expand...
It is about 6,000 years old.
Greg Jennings said:
Or the speed of light.
Click to expand...
We both agree what the current one way speed of light is. But, even secular physicists don't know what the two way speed is... nor what the speed was in the past.... Trillions of times faster than now?? https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/was-the-speed-of-light-faster-at-the-beginning-of-the-universe
Greg Jennings said:
Or why the entire field of science started with the same beliefs as you but changed as evidence was discovered over two centuries.
Click to expand...
Well, the evidence discovered is consistent with God's Word. It depends which world view you wish to interpret evidence from. 60 years ago there was only 2 known scientists willing to go against the consensus on common ancestry beliefs. Today, there are likely tens of thousands of scientists world wide who reject the common ancestry belief system (Fortunately science is not determined by popular opinion)
Greg Jennings said:
You can't explain any of it. None.
Click to expand...
Of course evidence can be explained and is explained...and helps support the truth of God's Word.
 
6days

6days

New member
Greg Jennings said:
The mutations are random. They can be good, though usually they are neutral (will not affect the organisms) or bad (usually results in an organism that is deficient, and dies before reproducing).
Click to expand...
Greg... that is what evolutionists taught years ago, and it seems some STILL believe that.

Geneticists rarely, if ever think there is such a thing as a truly neutral mutation. Virtually all mutations are thought of as VSDM's (very slightly deleterious mutations). In human genomes, each generation has about 100 or more (possibly a few hundred) VSDM's and about 3 deleterious mutations added to our genome each generation. Every human has a few thousand deleterious mutations in our genome. Selection of course is incapable of detecting and removing mutations in a population (as in all primates) where there is a high mutation rate and low birth rate. These accumulating mutations have been referred to by geneticists with terms such as 'the population bomb'. The accumulation of VSDM's (genetic load) leads to further eventual genetic problems in the future. (Genetic disorders and diseases will increase.

Evidence from genetics is consistent with the Biblical model. Evidence from genetics is opposite of what the common ancestry model needs. Geneticists (secular ones) understand the problem and there are numerous articles in journals where they propose various models attempting to make evidence fit their beliefs (multiplicative model, synergistic epistasis, additive model).

BTW... "good mutations" you refer to is essentially a fantasy of evolutionists from the past. Even for geneticists who think there is such a thing, they still know it is so rare that it isn't used as a solution to the 'population bomb' problem. The so called 'good mutation' is considered so rare that it does not show up on charts where geneticists graph mutations. Graphs generally show most mutations as "near neutral", then tapering off towards deleterious. They don't chart any mutations on the opposite 'good' side of the neutral line. Yes, there are some rare mutations that have beneficial outcomes, but usually resulting from a corruption of information. For example the CCR5 mutation results in HIV resistance, but even secular literature calls this a "defective allele of this gene".. which can result in the person now being more susceptible to West Nile and hepatitis.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Stuu said:
Stuu: chickens have the genes to make teeth, left over from their evolutionary history as theropod dinosaurs.

Read about it on creationwiki. See how I've saved you the hassle of having to look up the 'creationist perspective' this time. Once they explain the science they then try to make it fit the hilarious 'just in case' model.

Stuart
Click to expand...
Your belief that there is "an evolutionary history" from theropod dinosaurs to chickens is pure speculation based on a preconceived idea and NOT on actual science.
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
6days said:
Geneticists rarely, if ever think there is such a thing as a truly neutral mutation. Virtually all mutations are thought of as VSDM's (very slightly deleterious mutations).
Evidence from genetics is consistent with the Biblical model.
BTW... "good mutations" you refer to is essentially a fantasy of evolutionists from the past.
Click to expand...

You are, of course, quite wrong on most counts.

See here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1871816/
and here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515631/
and here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC299980/
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Greg Jennings said:
Clete, I try to be polite here, but since you have no interest in that I will not hold back on you.

You're just not smart. You cannot work out logic. Seriously have ever studied ANYTHING? You seem like a complete moron. 6, Stripe, and others can at least put up a struggle sometimes. All you do is say "No! That's stupid! I'm right!" I doubt you had ever even heard of an amino acid before I told you about them.

As I said, WE DO THIS IN THE LAB DAILY. WE PRODUCE ORGANIC COMPUNDS FROM INORGANIC ROCKS IN EARLY EARTH CONDITIONS. Do you know what that means? Obviously not!

I'm sorry. But talking to deluded idiots is not on my schedule today. Feel free to tell me your education level in regards to biology, genetics, zoology, or evolution.

I predict you won't because you've never had one. In your case, likely bc you're an idiot who couldn't hack it
Click to expand...

100% as predicted - and hypocritical to boot.
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Stuu said:
So does science say we are social, or not? You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
Of course you can have it both ways. People have been murdering other people for all of history. That doesn't make us non-social creatures. Indeed, the word murder has no meaning outside of a social structure.

Er, you've got me there. What on earth are you talking about? Is there some eugenic cult that thought it could carry out genocide through knowledge gained from cadavers? Never heard of it.

Do you believe that aliens abduct and probe humans?
Click to expand...
Ever heard of Nazi Germany? They performed experiments on humans to further the 'master race' on an industrial scale.

You mean it is an extension of a racist worldview, or a lack of understanding of the difference between natural selection and artificial selection.
Click to expand...
No, that isn't what I mean.

That would only be necessary if I had no idea about the difference between Social Darwinism and evolution by natural selection.

Stuart
Click to expand...
As I said, the distinction is primarily a rhetorical one. The only substantive difference is that the later is a non-directed process as apposed to the former being purposeful and directed. The motive and/or skill of such direction is only relevant to the potential outcome, which you, as an evolutionist, have no rational way of condemning because your own worldview tells you that it was evolution that gave us the ability to perform such directed selection. That is to say that since, according to you, both we and our social nature are products of Darwinian natural selection, then, by extension, what you call social Darwinism is too.

Clete
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
6days said:
Greg... that is what evolutionists taught years ago, and it seems some STILL believe that.

Geneticists rarely, if ever think there is such a thing as a truly neutral mutation. Virtually all mutations are thought of as VSDM's (very slightly deleterious mutations). In human genomes, each generation has about 100 or more (possibly a few hundred) VSDM's and about 3 deleterious mutations added to our genome each generation. Every human has a few thousand deleterious mutations in our genome. Selection of course is incapable of detecting and removing mutations in a population (as in all primates) where there is a high mutation rate and low birth rate. These accumulating mutations have been referred to by geneticists with terms such as 'the population bomb'. The accumulation of VSDM's (genetic load) leads to further eventual genetic problems in the future. (Genetic disorders and diseases will increase.

Evidence from genetics is consistent with the Biblical model. Evidence from genetics is opposite of what the common ancestry model needs. Geneticists (secular ones) understand the problem and there are numerous articles in journals where they propose various models attempting to make evidence fit their beliefs (multiplicative model, synergistic epistasis, additive model).

BTW... "good mutations" you refer to is essentially a fantasy of evolutionists from the past. Even for geneticists who think there is such a thing, they still know it is so rare that it isn't used as a solution to the 'population bomb' problem. The so called 'good mutation' is considered so rare that it does not show up on charts where geneticists graph mutations. Graphs generally show most mutations as "near neutral", then tapering off towards deleterious. They don't chart any mutations on the opposite 'good' side of the neutral line. Yes, there are some rare mutations that have beneficial outcomes, but usually resulting from a corruption of information. For example the CCR5 mutation results in HIV resistance, but even secular literature calls this a "defective allele of this gene".. which can result in the person now being more susceptible to West Nile and hepatitis.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent example of how evolutionists cannot deal with real science. The more hard science (e.g. biology, genetics, chemistry, etc) learns, the more impossible evolution is shown to be.
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
6days said:
Not sure is you are joking or not? Tasmanian handfish appear designed for their environment. Just because a fish (Ambystoma mexicanum, handfish, mudskippers, red finned batfish and more) has 'legs' does not mean the legs evolved... or that these or any other fish is evolving into anything different than what they already are.
Evolutionists seem to have even imagined 'legs' where none exist (coelacanths).
Click to expand...

This is exactly right. It's just their mass delusion confirmation bias in action.
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
Clete said:
This is exactly right. It's just their mass delusion confirmation bias in action.
Click to expand...

A question on confirmation bias, Clete.

Would you be a Christian if you weren't surrounded by Christians in the past? What i mean is did your adoption of the Bible as Truth happen independently of the confirmation effect of other Christians who you trusted?
 
ThisIsMyUserName

ThisIsMyUserName

New member
Hi all,

I'm here to try my best to answer all questions that creationists have about evolution.
There shouldn't be any reason for believers to reject established science.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
chair said:
These threads about the mechanism of the evolution of various things are basically pointless. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that nobody had any idea at all of how legs evolved. Not a clue. It would not make evolution go away. Legs evolved. As did just about every living this on earth. The animals and plants that we have today were not around millions of years ago, and the animals and plant from back then do not exist today in their ancient form. Animals and plants changed over time. That is evolution. Whether or not scientists can explain the mechanism of this or that detail- or any mechanism at all for all of evolution- makes no difference. Evolution happened. I understand that this is a problem for people with particular religious views, but arguing about the mechanism won't help them. To make "evolution go away" so your religious beliefs won't be challenged, you'd need to show that "evolution didn't happen", not that "scientists don't understand the mechanism of leg evolution." Chair
Click to expand...

Silence! Bow before the almighty Darwinism!
 
Ask Mr. Religion

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
ThisIsMyUserName said:
Hi all,

I'm here to try my best to answer all questions that creationists have about evolution.
There shouldn't be any reason for believers to reject established science.
Click to expand...

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?127091-If-Evolution&p=5175850&viewfull=1#post5175850

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ree-together&p=5122747&viewfull=1#post5122747

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ree-together&p=5122434&viewfull=1#post5122434

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?126660-Things-To-Know&p=5096715&viewfull=1#post5096715

Sigh.

AMR
 
ThisIsMyUserName

ThisIsMyUserName

New member
Ask Mr. Religion said:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?127091-If-Evolution&p=5175850&viewfull=1#post5175850

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ree-together&p=5122747&viewfull=1#post5122747

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ree-together&p=5122434&viewfull=1#post5122434

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?126660-Things-To-Know&p=5096715&viewfull=1#post5096715

Sigh.

AMR
Click to expand...

Hi, thanks for your message. I'll have a look.
The first impression I get, though, is that the links aren't related to science .....
 
G

Greg Jennings

New member
6days said:
Greg... that is what evolutionists taught years ago, and it seems some STILL believe that.

Geneticists rarely, if ever think there is such a thing as a truly neutral mutation. Virtually all mutations are thought of as VSDM's (very slightly deleterious mutations). In human genomes, each generation has about 100 or more (possibly a few hundred) VSDM's and about 3 deleterious mutations added to our genome each generation. Every human has a few thousand deleterious mutations in our genome. Selection of course is incapable of detecting and removing mutations in a population (as in all primates) where there is a high mutation rate and low birth rate. These accumulating mutations have been referred to by geneticists with terms such as 'the population bomb'. The accumulation of VSDM's (genetic load) leads to further eventual genetic problems in the future. (Genetic disorders and diseases will increase.

Evidence from genetics is consistent with the Biblical model. Evidence from genetics is opposite of what the common ancestry model needs. Geneticists (secular ones) understand the problem and there are numerous articles in journals where they propose various models attempting to make evidence fit their beliefs (multiplicative model, synergistic epistasis, additive model).

BTW... "good mutations" you refer to is essentially a fantasy of evolutionists from the past. Even for geneticists who think there is such a thing, they still know it is so rare that it isn't used as a solution to the 'population bomb' problem. The so called 'good mutation' is considered so rare that it does not show up on charts where geneticists graph mutations. Graphs generally show most mutations as "near neutral", then tapering off towards deleterious. They don't chart any mutations on the opposite 'good' side of the neutral line. Yes, there are some rare mutations that have beneficial outcomes, but usually resulting from a corruption of information. For example the CCR5 mutation results in HIV resistance, but even secular literature calls this a "defective allele of this gene".. which can result in the person now being more susceptible to West Nile and hepatitis.
Click to expand...

6, there are most certainly neutral mutations. I don't care what the obstetrician at AiG told you. Geologists and paleontologist and biologists taught me. Not an obstetrician
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top