Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[6days]

So is a panda, which you just said was a member of the bear "kind" on the last page, a part of that group or isn't it?

Yes... we call Pandas BEARS!

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes... we call Pandas BEARS!

So I guess red pandas are also in this "kind", since we call them PANDAS!!

:rotfl:

 

[Jonahdog]

Yes... we call Pandas BEARS!

and we call tardigrades "water bears"

 

[6days]

So I guess red pandas are also in this "kind", since we call them PANDAS!!

:rotfl:

I wonder what Greg thinks a Panda is. Most peoe call it a bear.
Its like calling both a tuna and a minnow a fish.

M

 

[6days]

'm quite sure by now that even you do understand that genetic information CAN increase

Disagree.

Again back to the example of the extremely simple whisk fern. Althougg its genome is far larger than that of humans, it contains far less meaningful info. *Again, like a book with numerous duplicated pages... *it isn't adding information.*

 

[6days]

and we call tardigrades "water bears"

Good point Jonah. Lets hope Greg sees this.

 

[Jonahdog]

Good point Jonah. Lets hope Greg sees this.

Are tardigrades in the bear kind?

 

[6days]

Are tardigrades in the bear kind?

Depends what you mean. Do you think they are the same kind of animal as a polar bear?

I thought Greg might be interested in your point because he seems to be working on something to do with things that are called bears. We could also mention koala bears and gummy bears.

 

[Crucible]

Don't be so concerned with the arrogance of atheists and their evolution- half of it is much trumped up theory and the other the default assumption of the person in denial of their own intrinsic recognizance of God- the suckle from birth you knew from your beginning.

 

[alwight]

Don't be so concerned with the arrogance of atheists and their evolution- half of it is much trumped up theory and the other the default assumption of the person in denial of their own intrinsic recognizance of God- the suckle from birth you knew from your beginning.

I'd be more concerned with those theists who insist that evolution is only for atheists.

 

[Crucible]

I'd be more concerned with those theists who insist that evolution is only for atheists.

Evolution is, by reason and definition, the 'Pentateuch' of atheist belief. To believe there is no creator is to clamber unto natural possibilities.

 

[alwight]

Evolution is, by reason and definition, the 'Pentateuch' of atheist belief. To believe there is no creator is to clamber unto natural possibilities.

Some atheists may believe that there is no creator while others, the majority imo, don't pretend to know nor will they make presumptive assumptions either way in lieu of specific facts and evidence.

 

[Crucible]

Some atheists may believe that there is no creator while others, the majority imo, don't pretend to know nor will they make presumptive assumptions either way in lieu of specific facts and evidence.

That's a bunch of nonsense.
Get cancer and tell me more about how the universe came from a magic bean

 

[gcthomas]

Disagree.

Again back to the example of the extremely simple whisk fern. Althougg its genome is far larger than that of humans, it contains far less meaningful info. *Again, like a book with numerous duplicated pages... *it isn't adding information.*

So how is that measured, again? :chuckle:

 

[alwight]

Disagree.

Again back to the example of the extremely simple whisk fern. Althougg its genome is far larger than that of humans, it contains far less meaningful info. *Again, like a book with numerous duplicated pages... *it isn't adding information.*

Just suppose for a minute that I had a book of information which contained several duplicate pages.
If I erased a few lines from a duplicate page then that information has not been lost since it still exists on another page, correct?
If I erased say several such lines and replaced them with some new information, perhaps copied and pasted from elsewhere, then the total information in that book has increased, right? :sherlock:

 

[alwight]

That's a bunch of nonsense.
Get cancer and tell me more about how the universe came from a magic bean

Please don't talk to me about getting cancer since I'm currently doing chemotherapy after bowel cancer surgery, from which I expect to make a full recovery btw, thanks for asking.
Unlike you most atheists including me do not claim to know the ultimate question nor try to explain it with superstition and mumbo-jumbo.

 

[Stripe]

What kind of cost?I read about there being trade offs in evolution. For example, rats could have better long lasting teeth, but something like their skeleton is weaker. Is that you you are referring to or is it something else?

I am not referring to that example in particular, but that is the idea.

Do you remember the rest of that discussion?

Do you concede that your question has been asked and answered numerous times?

You and 6days agree that neither of you have any idea how to measure genetic information.

Don't be daft. I have plenty of ideas of how to do that. However, such methods are well beyond scientists because they have almost no understanding of how DNA is written.

6days says natural selection is part of the "Biblical model of creation." Is he wrong?

No.

Did you have something of relevance to contribute, because this silly tactic of yours is nothing but a red herring.

Viruses (such as the flu virus) constantly mutate and change over time. If it were true that mutations come at a cost, shouldn't such viruses have mutated themselves out of existence?

That would depend on several factors:
1. Are what evolutionists call "mutations" actually random changes, or are they design features?
2. How good was the original design at preserving viability?
3. How long have viruses been degrading?

 

[gcthomas]

There are many articles I could refer you to. For ex. Kondrashov in 1995 wrote "Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: Why we have not died 100 times over? Published in theoretical biology


In that article he is only talking about slightly deleterious mutations. He is not considering the more harmful mutations that are not eliminated by natural selection. Would you like to learn about them?

Yes, I would. Could you reproduce the part of the paper that most supports your contention, please? (I can't get any more that the abstract - so unless you have paid access, I think you are just reproducing parts of a YEC bibliography bank without reading your claimed sources - a very dishonest approach, IMO)

 

[chair]

A curious thread, in which the creationists insist that evolution happens, even much faster than scientists think. They just don't like the mechanism.

 

[Stripe]

Creationists insist that evolution happens.

Nope.

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection. That never happened and the idea is dead in the water.