Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

And Mark,

Do you know if Noah brought one Dreadnaughtus, he would also have to bring another Dreadnaughtus, male and female. Talk about weighing the boat down. Especially when you add the Tyrannosaurus Rex's, the Brontosaurus's and the Brachiosaurus's, etc. Plus their food!! Yep, they got left off at the Ark's door. What do you think??

Much Respect For You,

Michael

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Makes sense to me. : D

=M=

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Mark,

Isn't it hilarious. It gives me quite a chuckle!! Heheehehe

Michael

 

[DFT_Dave]

Aging is an Evolutionary Paradox
"Why do we age and die? Aging, or senescence as it is sometimes called, is an inevitable progressive deterioration of physiological function with increasing age, demographically characterized by an age-dependent increase in mortality and decline of fecundity. This poses an evolutionary paradox: natural selection designs organisms for optimal survival and reproductive success (Darwinian fitness), so why does evolution not prevent aging in the first place?"

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/the-evolution-of-aging-23651151

Hi everyone.

The very process that is said to be the creative force of evolution is at the same time a process that is destructive.

The obvious answer is entropy and proof that evolution is impossible.

--Dave

He's back :the_wave:

 

[alwight]

Aging is an Evolutionary Paradox
"Why do we age and die? Aging, or senescence as it is sometimes called, is an inevitable progressive deterioration of physiological function with increasing age, demographically characterized by an age-dependent increase in mortality and decline of fecundity. This poses an evolutionary paradox: natural selection designs organisms for optimal survival and reproductive success (Darwinian fitness), so why does evolution not prevent aging in the first place?"

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/the-evolution-of-aging-23651151

Hi everyone.

The very process that is said to be the creative force of evolution is at the same time a process that is destructive.

The obvious answer is entropy and proof that evolution is impossible.

--Dave

He's back :the_wave:

Hi Dave how you been?

Anyway, no it isn't, evolution wouldn't work if the previous generation didn't die, it needs beneficial adaptions to be naturally selected for in order to adapt and speciate. The role of the individual is merely to produce a new generation and die or just die as food for something else. Evolution acts on species not individuals who are usually expendable, while species carry on with the job of evolution down the ages.
It's a wonderful world isn't it? lain:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Hi Dave how you been?

Anyway, no it isn't, evolution wouldn't work if the previous generation didn't die, it needs beneficial adaptions to be naturally selected for in order to adapt and speciate. The role of the individual is merely to produce a new generation and die or just die as food for something else. Evolution acts on species not individuals who are usually expendable, while species carry on with the job of evolution down the ages.
It's a wonderful world isn't it? lain:

Now explain how this works.

--Dave

 

[alwight]

Now explain how this works.

--Dave

How what works? :liberals:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Cell replication breaks down. Mutations are errors in replication that are the reason for the break down. Evolution requires a population over time to produce enough mutations that make it more adaptable to a change in environment.

But if mutations are the reason for cell break down and death how can these errors in replication produce any improvement in replication or reproduction at the same time?

DNA is specific information, a mutation is an error in replication in the direction of disinformation. Evolution is a process toward greater disinformation that would eventually, in reality, destroy an entire population.

--Dave

 

[alwight]

Cell replication breaks down. Mutations are errors in replication that are the reason for the break down. Evolution requires a population over time to produce enough mutations that make it more adaptable to a change in environment.

But if mutations are the reason for cell break down and death how can these errors in replication produce any improvement in replication or reproduction at the same time?

DNA is specific information, a mutation is an error in replication in the direction of disinformation. Evolution is a process toward greater disinformation that would eventually, in reality, destroy an entire population.

--Dave

Did you want to comment on anything I said above Dave or do you just want to make bald assertions that evolutionary biologists and geneticists would probably disagree with you about?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Did you want to comment on anything I said above Dave or do you just want to make bald assertions that evolutionary biologists and geneticists would probably disagree with you about?

Do you suffer from hair loss? You have always used the word "bald" a lot.

Anyway, I'll make a "bold" assertion. No one can explain what is not possible, and a process that is destructive over time cannot also be creative.

"Gradual genetic changes may be the source of many, if not all illnesses of aging, including breast cancer, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's disease and arthritis. A new study by scientists in The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology at The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) in La Jolla and the Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation, published in the latest issue of Science, concludes that human aging and its associated diseases and conditions can be traced to a gradual increase in cell division errors in tissues throughout the body."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000331083546.htm

--Dave

 

[The Barbarian]

If Dave would like to see some useful mutations, I'd be pleased to show him.

Do you have enough faith in your belief to test it, Dave?

 

[alwight]

Do you suffer from hair loss? You have always used the word "bald" a lot.

Anyway, I'll make a "bold" assertion. No one can explain what is not possible, and a process that is destructive over time cannot also be creative.

"Gradual genetic changes may be the source of many, if not all illnesses of aging, including breast cancer, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's disease and arthritis. A new study by scientists in The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology at The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) in La Jolla and the Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation, published in the latest issue of Science, concludes that human aging and its associated diseases and conditions can be traced to a gradual increase in cell division errors in tissues throughout the body."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000331083546.htm

--Dave

My hair may not be as luxuriant as it once was when I was younger Dave but it causes me no suffering.:flamer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere
I gather that the shortening of telomeres over time is cited as a likely cause of aging.
The fate of individuals in evolution is aging and death if other things don't get you first. Evolution doesn't seem to require individuals to stick around indefinitely, only long enough to produce a new generation, shame really.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Mutation Through Reproduction, Has Never Lead to Speciation, only Genetic Disorders; In Fact, there is No Proof Speciation Has Occurred.

If Speciation has never been observed Occurring, then the Theory of Evolution (as a means by which all the Various Creatures we share this Planet with), is not the Way All the Animals Came to be.

If Speciation was the Way Animals became Different Forms/Kinds, there would be Evidence of it still happening throughout the World; Given there are Currently so many Different Species of Animals.

=M=

Dave's Right; Mutation is always a Destructive Force, causing Genetic Disorders, which are Variants from the More Potent Original Genome.

Sickle cell disease is a group of disorders that affects hemoglobin, the molecule in red blood cells that delivers oxygen to cells throughout the body.

This Guy does A better Job Explaining it than I Ever Could

 

[DFT_Dave]

My hair may not be as luxuriant as it once was when I was younger Dave but it causes me no suffering.:flamer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere
I gather that the shortening of telomeres over time is cited as a likely cause of aging.
The fate of individuals in evolution is aging and death if other things don't get you first. Evolution doesn't seem to require individuals to stick around indefinitely, only long enough to produce a new generation, shame really.

I don't have as much hair as I once did either.

That problem with telomere's would be a break down in replication I would guess.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

If Dave would like to see some useful mutations, I'd be pleased to show him.

Do you have enough faith in your belief to test it, Dave?

We have enough facts, faith is not required. Make your case.

--Dave

 

[The Barbarian]

We have enough facts, faith is not required. Make your case.

How about humans?

A Null Mutation in Human APOC3 Confers a Favorable Plasma Lipid Profile and Apparent Cardioprotection
Science 12 December 2008:
Vol. 322 no. 5908 pp. 1702-1705
Apolipoprotein C-III (apoC-III) inhibits triglyceride hydrolysis and has been implicated in coronary artery disease. Through a genome-wide association study, we have found that about 5% of the Lancaster Amish are heterozygous carriers of a null mutation (R19X) in the gene encoding apoC-III (APOC3) and, as a result, express half the amount of apoC-III present in noncarriers. Mutation carriers compared with noncarriers had lower fasting and postprandial serum triglycerides, higher levels of HDL-cholesterol and lower levels of LDL-cholesterol. Subclinical atherosclerosis, as measured by coronary artery calcification, was less common in carriers than noncarriers, which suggests that lifelong deficiency of apoC-III has a cardioprotective effect.

------------

The evolutionary history of the CCR5-Δ32 HIV-resistance mutation
Microbes and Infection

Volume 7, Issue 2, February 2005, Pages 302–309
Abstract

The CCR5 chemokine receptor is exploited by HIV-1 to gain entry into CD4+ T cells. A deletion mutation (Δ32) confers resistance against HIV by obliterating the expression of the receptor on the cell surface. Intriguingly, this allele is young in evolutionary time, yet it has reached relatively high frequencies in Europe. These properties indicate that the mutation has been under intense positive selection. HIV-1 has not exerted selection for long enough on the human population to drive the CCR5-Δ32 allele to current frequencies, fueling debate regarding the selective pressure responsible for rise of the allele. The allele exists at appreciable frequencies only in Europe, and within Europe, the frequency is higher in the north. Here we review the population genetics of the CCR5 locus, the debate over the historical selective pressure acting on CCR5-Δ32, the inferences that can potentially be drawn from the geographic distribution of CCR5-Δ32 and the role that other genetic polymorphisms play in conferring resistance against HIV. We also discuss parallel evolution that has occurred at the CCR5 locus of other primate species. Finally, we highlight the promise that therapies based on interfering with the CCR5 receptor could have in the treatment of HIV.

-------------

A new mutation provides protection against malaria, without the drawbacks of the sickle cell mutation.

One in ten people surveyed in the West African nation of Burkina Faso has a genetic mutation that protects against malaria, according to a new study. The mutation changes the protein—haemoglobin—that carries oxygen in red blood cells. The altered protein is especially protective against severe malaria.

David Modiano of the Università 'Tor Vergata' in Rome, Italy, and colleagues surveyed 4,300 individuals including 800 malaria patients in Ouagadougon, Burkina Faso. They found that one copy of the gene reduced a person's risk of developing malaria by 29 percent. Two copies of the gene reduced the risk by 93 percent. The research appeared in Nature.

The reason the mutation—haemoglobin C, or HbC—offers protection is not yet known. But other malaria-resistant genes have been identified in tropical populations at risk for the disease, suggesting that naturally occurring mutations are an evolutionary response. A more frequent mutation in the haemoglobin molecule, called HbS, offers protection against malaria, but it can cause sickle-cell anaemia.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/12_01/Malaria.shtml

------------------------------------


Published Online May 13 2010
Science 2 July 2010:
Vol. 329 no. 5987 pp. 72-75
DOI: 10.1126/science.1189406
Genetic Evidence for High-Altitude Adaptation in Tibet
Abstract

Tibetans have lived at very high altitudes for thousands of years, and they have a distinctive suite of physiological traits that enable them to tolerate environmental hypoxia. These phenotypes are clearly the result of adaptation to this environment, but their genetic basis remains unknown. We report genome-wide scans that reveal positive selection in several regions that contain genes whose products are likely involved in high-altitude adaptation. Positively selected haplotypes of EGLN1 and PPARA were significantly associated with the decreased hemoglobin phenotype that is unique to this highland population. Identification of these genes provides support for previously hypothesized mechanisms of high-altitude adaptation and illuminates the complexity of hypoxia-response pathways in humans.


--------------------------------

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center:
Apo A-1 Milano
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, University of Milan researchers found that a male inhabitant (Valerio Dagnoli) of the lakeside town Limone sul Garda in Northern Italy had a very low level of HDL cholesterol (the good cholesterol that tends to protect arteries from cholesterol-plaque buildup) and high levels of triglycerides (a bad form of fat in blood that can lead to cholesterol-plaque deposit in the arteries). Despite this highly abnormal lipid profile, the middle-aged man had no evidence of cardiovascular disease, and his parents had enjoyed longevity.

When blood tests were done on the entire 1,000 inhabitants of Limone, about 40 individuals had a similar lipid abnormality. Using birth records maintained in the local church going back several hundred years, it was found that these 40 individuals were all traceable to common ancestors from 1780 (Giovanni Pomaroli and Rosa Giovaneli). This then led to the discovery that these 40 individuals had a genetic mutation in the gene that makes a protein called apo A-1, which becomes a part of the HDL cholesterol particle.

----------

Researchers have discovered a genetic mutation that causes extremely high bone density in humans. The finding may suggest a new route for developing drugs that can increase bone density to prevent or treat osteoporosis. The study was published in the May 16, 2002, issue of The New England Journal of Medicine.

The investigators identified a US family with very strong bones because of a genetic mutation. Family members with this mutation have no symptoms, but they do have a strikingly deep and wide jaw and bony growth on the palate. Twenty family members aided the research by providing blood samples for DNA and bone density testing. Seven members of the family had extremely high bone density, while nine had entirely normal density. Serum and urinary biochemical measurements were performed in four members and then compared with results from nine control subjects.

"What we found is that the high bone density in this family behaved as a single gene disorder,” said Richard Lifton, M.D., chair of the department of genetics at Yale School of Medicine (New Haven, CT, USA). "We then went on to map the location of the gene and identified the specific mutation responsible for the high bone density.”

The researchers mapped the gene to the same chromosome segment in LRP5, shown to be the source of a mutation that causes a loss in the function of the LRP5 gene, resulting in low bone density. "It made us wonder if a different mutation increased LRP5 function leading to an opposite phenotype, that is, high bone density,” explained Dr. Lifton. He noted that the study also showed that prevention of the normal inhibition of LRP5 by Dkk, another developmental protein, causes high bone density without other clinical side effects, suggesting a new route for osteoporosis therapy.
http://www.biotechdaily.com/genomic...enetic_mutation_causes_high_bone_density.html

How many would you like to see?

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Exactly Barbie; no amount of Gene Disorders, will lead to a New Species.

Evolution is Obviously False.

=M=

If an animal does Mutate to the Point where the Genome Differs so much From it's Ancestral Line that it can No Longer Reproduce with it's Ancestral Line; That animal probably will never Reproduce at All, given mutation has Rendered it Incapable of Reproduction.

That is Why Speciation is Impossible, Barbie.

Species - A Group of Animals which are Capable of Reproducing with One Another.

Animals Stay the Same Kind, forever.
A Natural Law from the Bible, that holds true today.
Mutation through Reproduction in Animals, simply does not allow for Speciation.

There are many Animals that can be Observed, which have Mutated so Far from it's original Ancestral Line, that they are becoming Extinct, and thereby not an Ancestor to anybody, but a perfect Example of Why Speciation is Impossible.

Speciation is the Process Proposed in the Theory of Evolution, which attempts to Explain the Source of the Various Forms of Animals we share the World With.

They say Speciation Begins by animals being Separated, and that the Separation and Containment of a Single Variant of a Certain Species; However, all that can be Observed, is that animals that are Split, do change size and color, but they Never Become a New Species.

For instance, the Dog and Wolf; they were Split for a Very Long time; However, dogs and wolves can still interbreed Successfully, and their Children are capable of Producing Fertile Offspring. They have Remained the Same Species; Which is Proof against the Theory of Evolution, and Speciation.

A Lion and Tiger, may never have been the Same Animal, but they are the Same "Kind" of animal; What I'm saying is that the Lion and Tiger may have been Initially Created as a Separate type of Cat, instead of the Common Evolutionist stance that they had a Common Ancestor; They are both cats however, and are capable of Producing Fertile Offspring.

Now, how long have Tigers and Lions lived apart from one another?

According to Evolutionists, a very long time; So, Why hasn't speciation happened?

If it hasn't happened for Dogs and Cats; why do you believe that it happened to Every Species of Animal that Currently Exists?
Shouldn't Speciation be an Observable Process, that is Constantly Occurring, if the Theory of Evolution is Based in Truth?

If all Dogs, are Genetically Close Enough to Reproduce; Speciation has not Occurred.

Granted some Various forms of Dogs, have Changed Size to the Point where they Could no Longer Interbreed Naturally; However, all of them Can Still Reproduce, through Artificial Insemination.

So by Science, we know they are the Same Species.

Not Science based on any hypothetical process of the Theory of Evolution, but Science based on Observable Truth. (Science)

 

[The Barbarian]

Let's see what creationists say about it:
Answers in Genesis:
As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time. The biodiversity represented in the 8.7 million or so species in the world is a testament, not to random chance processes, but to the genetic variability and potential for diversification within the created kinds.

As you know, evolutionary theory shows that natural selection is the antithesis if random chance processes. The "potential for diversification" has always been there. They just imagine some kind of wall between "kinds" which they can't define.

ICR:
Notice that the definitions of species as used above hinge on their explanatory power for evolutionary phenomena. If speciation were real, but subject to finite limits of variation, then microevolution very well might be confirmed without the collateral concept of macroevolution being established at all. A creationist view allows for some speciation because of the wide range of definitions, but does not support higher taxonation.

Why do they admit the evolution of new species? Because the evidence can't be ignored. So they imagine some kind of limit to "kinds."

You're out on that limb by yourself, Mark.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

No, I'm a biblical creationist; Unlike the Evolutionist Creationist that wrote the Answers in Genesis; who is like you.

I am an Old Earth, Young Life Creationist, barbie. Don't forget that. Yes, I am on a Limb by myself, but so was Columbus, and guess what, the world wasn't flat at all like the Science of the Day, and the Catholic Church Said.

The ICR Article (The Second Article You Posted) seems to be saying exactly what I am.

I don't use the Words Micro-evolution, or Macro-evoluton, however.

See, Speciation is MacroEvolution, but Mutation is Micro-evolution.

You can believe in Mutation, and Not Speciation. That's not A conflicting belief system.

Which is what that Second article seems to say when it states; "microevolution very well might be confirmed without the collateral concept of macroevolution being established at all."

=M=

Barbie, how many times are you usually wrong in one day?

That's like three today, just with me.

I don't use Undefined Words that are just Hypothetical Biological Ideas/Concepts, such as Evolution (As a Biological Term), Speciation, Microevolution, or Macroevolution. Unless of Course I'm Describing how they are False Concepts.

Do you use the Terms Microevolution, or Macroevolution, Barbie?


What is a Contradicting Belief System, is to say that you believe in the God of the Biblical Work, and to say you believe in Evolution.

The Biblical Work says, "God Created Man In His Own Image", and that Adam could Talk and Walk from the Day he was Created; Not that he Had to learn how to walk and Talk changing slowly over three million years (Or Quite Quickly in the Broad Evolutionary Time Scale of Things, considering evolutionists don't believe anything Speciated but man in the Past 3 Million Years).

Proof Evolutionists have Trouble Defining Biological Terms they use in nearly Every Conversation with a Creationist;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

 

[MichaelCadry]

No, I'm a biblical creationist; Unlike the Evolutionist Creationist that wrote the Answers in Genesis; who is like you.

I am an Old Earth, Young Life Creationist, barbie. Don't forget that. Yes, I am on a Limb by myself, but so was Columbus, and guess what, the world wasn't flat at all like the Science of the Day, and the Catholic Church Said.

Dear Mark,

You are hardly stuck out on a limb all by yourself. God is with you. I am with you. Jesus is with you. Moses is with you. Daft_Dave is probably with you. He's a really cool guy that I think you will like, Mark. Barbarian likes to insert totally incomprehensible paragraphs that he copies somewhere to post here. It's no secret.

God Be With You Always,

Michael



:rotfl:

:drum: