How do mutations code sequence to symbols?

a reply to: cooperton

That cannot happen without an Intelligent Designer.

Staggering how knowledge blinds us from simplicity. If I taught science
that would be my first lesson.

a reply to: Phantom423

It's up to you to notice that you are truly fighting against your own
best interests. If you see that as scientific then what good is science
to you personally? Or anyone else for that matter? God answers that
question. " For what good does it do if one gains the whole world and
loses their own soul?". Your soul is you and you were meant to live forever.
Is it science that tells you to be so hateful to people that are only taking
a great part of their time to help you? And there is no other way of seeing
it. No one offering you Jesus and redemption is trying to drag you to hell.
And yet that's almost how you react. Try to make sense of that in your mind?
But don't let it drive you crazy.

a reply to: cooperton

Viruses remain viruses, mice remain mice, humans remain humans, fruit flies remain fruit flies, that's what the lab data shows. Organisms cannot change over time into another organism. Although it's hard to prove a negative, this is about as close as it gets to demonstrating organisms cannot evolve.

That is because your definition of 'something different' has NOTHING to do with evolution. We all get it - you are pretending ignorance on the subject. It has been explained to you over and over and over and over and over. You know exactly what is going on and are being willfully dishonest.

Every generation of any organism is a different organism from the one preceding it. EVERY GENERATION. You are different than your father and your mother and even your twin brother, not just because of different experiences and environment but because of different genetics. Identical twins are NOT identical. And those differences are quantifiable via genome evaluation. It is absolutely measurable in the laboratory and observable in nature.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT EVOLUTION IS.

Evolution is "change over time", nothing more, nothing less.

Remember that in biological evolution time is measured in generations, not clock ticks or planetary orbits.

EVERY GENERATION IS 'something else' than the generation before it (and in fact the members of its cohort in the case of multiple births).

You keep asking for dogs (something, anything) to turn into chickens (something else) in front of your eyes as if that would prove evolution to you, when in fact it would absolutely disprove evolution. This too has been explained to you over and over and over. YOUR definition of 'turning into something else' has nothing to do with evolution in biology (or any other discipline).

originally posted by: rnaa

That is because your definition of 'something different' has NOTHING to do with evolution.

origin of species means that organisms originated by changing from a predecessor organism. We do not have any examples of this being possible.

Every generation of any organism is a different organism from the one preceding it. EVERY GENERATION. You are different than your father and your mother and even your twin brother, not just because of different experiences and environment but because of different genetics. Identical twins are NOT identical. And those differences are quantifiable via genome evaluation. It is absolutely measurable in the laboratory and observable in nature.

nah, humans remain humans. Yes there are phenotypic differences, but we remain humans.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT EVOLUTION IS.

humans remaining human?

Evolution is "change over time", nothing more, nothing less.

That's such a broad definition. I am referring to the claim that organisms mutating is what resulted in the diversity of life we see in biology. There is no evidence that this diversity could come to be through random mutation. Organisms can adapt, but they cannot change outside their essential nature. Countless lab experiments attempting to artificially select an organism have failed to produce something new - fruit flies remain fruit flies... despite countless generations trying to evolve them into something else.

You keep asking for dogs (something, anything) to turn into chickens (something else) in front of your eyes as if that would prove evolution to you

Never said that. If organisms can indeed evolve, we would have noticed it in the countless generations of artificially selected fruit flies in a lab. But they always remain fruit flies.

a reply to: cooperton

I think your confused on speciation. First this is going to shock you but evolution doesnt say a species just produces another species. That doesnt happen A horse is not going to have a baby cow and sadly this seems to be your major argument. speciation occurs through minor changes which eventually leads to genetic diffrences making them incapable of breeding with each other which in effect created a new species. As new species are created they themselves create new species and with time the changes are dramatic. There are a couple of reasons speciation occurs we learned this through Darwin and genetic testing.

Here if your going to talk about something at least educate yourself on the topic.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

A horse is not going to have a baby cow and sadly this seems to be your major argument.

No that's not my argument. Evolution insists that the diversity of species comes from organisms mutating gradually over time into different organisms. We see no evidence that this occurs. Fruit flies have been artificially bred for countless generations and they still remain fruit flies, no hint whatsoever of them gradually changing away from fruit flies

Dramatic speciation occurs after or during significant extinction events, where large gaps left in habitat, flora and fauna are exposed and filled in, in a relatively quick period of time. However, it would still take several hundred, or more likely, several thousand generations for the full array of new species to fully evolve into their new habitat.

The last was the Holocene, where large mammals were replaced with smaller and more varied species. Most continents lost all of their very large carnivores and almost all large herbivores.

There is a current extinction event happening now, in fact, but it is entirely human-made.

Of course, Cooperton will not recognise or accept this because his/her primary source of evidence only extends a few thousand years, and it only has one extinction event; the flood.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Dramatic speciation occurs after or during significant extinction events, where large gaps left in habitat, flora and fauna are exposed and filled in, in a relatively quick period of time. However, it would still take several hundred, or more likely, several thousand generations for the full array of new species to fully evolve into their new habitat.

The last was the Holocene, where large mammals were replaced with smaller and more varied species. Most continents lost all of their very large carnivores and almost all large herbivores.

There is a current extinction event happening now, in fact, but it is entirely human-made.

Of course, Cooperton will not recognise or accept this because his/her primary source of evidence only extends a few thousand years, and it only has one extinction event; the flood.

You cited no primary evidence. You are just story-telling

The fossil record is the evidence, it's not a story. Hypocritical of you to say that since the totality of your evidence is a string of fiction.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
The fossil record is the evidence, it's not a story. Hypocritical of you to say that since the totality of your evidence is a string of fiction.

I know evidence doesn't matter to you. It is only your belief you look to reaffirm, rather than seeing objectively. But in case you do consider objectivity, there are many instances which prove the evolutionary timeline is wrong







Upright trees are found in geological strata, indicating rapid deposition rather than the slow gradual we have been told.














This is just a small section of the abundance of evidence that disproves the evolutionary narrative. Notice how you can't find any evidence? I know you tried, but you may have realized it's not easy to come by any straightforward evidence for the assertions made by evolutionary theory. It's because evolution is a lie

I can't believe you're using this stuff again. All of it has been debunked already dozens of times on this site alone, not counting the rest of the internet. You really do take people for fools.

Believe what you want. My evidence is the basic foundation for every single student in geology, archaeology, paleo-sciences and more. Take your young Earth and shove it.

a reply to: cooperton

You really got to stop going to those creationist websites that lie to you. See you posted a known hoax as a legitimate artifact. It's really getting bad your wrong at every turn now. Again i think you need to educate yourself on things like concretions than just maybe you wouldn't look stupid.

www.badarchaeology.com...

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton

You really got to stop going to those creationist websites that lie to you. See you posted a known hoax as a legitimate artifact.

It's not a known hoax, your article simply says there's no proof it came from the rock formation. So sure, you can claim this must be faked, but don't say it's proven to be a hoax. And it's only one of many. Any comment on the upright trees being found passing through multiple geological strata? That also proves rapid deposition.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
My evidence is the basic foundation for every single student in geology, archaeology, paleo-sciences and more.

No you're just assuming it has to be a hoax to protect your erroneous belief system. Show me any evidence at all. I've shown you some of mine and you just blindly dismiss it, just like you blindly believe the mutant ape theory

Take your young Earth and shove it.

Lol why are you so zealously defending the theory that your grandparents were mutant apes? It's insulting to humanity.

a reply to: cooperton

Yes it is a known hoax by a creationist and you bought it hook line and sinker. Now for your trees in a nutshell this is a great example of how the arguments of Creationism depend very much on the audience having limited exposure to a particular science topic (sometimes it's genetics, sometimes anatomy, thermodynamics, biochemistry ... in this case geology).

A polystrate fossil a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum.This can occur when a tree is buried by say a mudslide or even sinks into a bog.The tree doesn't die and can continue to live even buried. If you ever tried to cut down a tree in your yard and have a stump that just won't die you are familiar with this process. Killing a large tree is difficult and even buried will launch out new roots to try to survive. and those roots can produce trees in other locations keeping the tree alive. So eventually minerals will kill the tree but this can take a long time meaning the tree can be buried by several layers which eventually fosilize.


en.wikipedia.org...

So once again your lack of knowledge of science has once again lead you to the wrong conclusions. If you are going to allow these creationists to decieve you atleast learn the science involved so you dont look silly.

a reply to: dragonridr

So you agree it proves rapid deposition. Good. You don't even know what you're arguing, you just try to disagree with everything I say no matter what I say. Glad you believe in polystyrate fossils, was waiting for you to blindly disregard them like all the other evidence.

How would a mudslide happen in a flat environment? These polystyrate fossils are found all around the world and could not be explained simply by mudslides. You jave to respect empirical data (science) not just brush it off because it falsified your belief system.

We are not the ancestors of mutant pond goo... this is good news

a reply to: cooperton

We are not the ancestors of mutant pond goo

Please cite a research paper or textbook that says our ancestors were pond goo. You repeat this statement hundreds of times and yet, you're not able to substantiate it. You make it up as you go along. Your cult crackpots have no credibility and neither do you.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Please cite a research paper or textbook that says our ancestors were pond goo. You repeat this statement hundreds of times and yet, you're not able to substantiate it.

The first organism is theorized to come from a primordial soup.

You make it up as you go along. Your cult crackpots have no credibility and neither do you.

Praying for you girl. Find peace not anger.

a reply to: cooperton

The first organism is theorized to come from a primordial soup.

Please cite a research paper or a textbook that says this. Thanks.

a reply to: cooperton

Nobody knows where life first formed. A hot candidate are underwater vents. Another along a rocky shoreline. Bubbling volcanic mudflats are yet another. There are a few possibilities. None of them, however, involve dust or ribs. Only an utter fool would believe that.

I'm wondering why the ape would have to be mutant, something you insist on? Why not just an ordinary ape?

I also wonder why the exact word of Genesis matters to you so much? Most practitioners of Abrahamic religions concede Genesis and their equivalents is allegory and not fact. So why is it so important to you, when it's not for anyone else, except creationists and other extremists? Is it because to cast doubt on one element of the bible will cast doubt on it all, and therefore delegitimise it for you?

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

Nobody knows where life first formed. A hot candidate are underwater vents. Another along a rocky shoreline. Bubbling volcanic mudflats are yet another. There are a few possibilities. None of them, however, involve dust or ribs. Only an utter fool would believe that.

I believe matter was created by a higher dimensional mind.

You believe matter created the mind through random mutation?

I'm wondering why the ape would have to be mutant, something you insist on? Why not just an ordinary ape?

The theory states that random mutations are what propel evolution. So we are mutated apes according to the theory.

I also wonder why the exact word of Genesis matters to you so much?

It's more so that evolution is bothersome to a developing mind asking questions. It is an enticing theory but few realize there's no actual science to show an organism can change on the macroevolutionary level. So it's just faith. But unlike other faiths, the evolutionary faith believes in meaninglessness, a random accident that generated the diversity of species. This, even if it were true, can wreak havoc on the mind.

Most practitioners of Abrahamic religions concede Genesis and their equivalents is allegory and not fact. So why is it so important to you, when it's not for anyone else, except creationists and other extremists?

I've come to realize it's true through my own investigation. I don't rely on the opinions of others as dogma. The Jews wrote down their history pragmatically, and it actually matches with many of the other major culture's historical writings.

Is it because to cast doubt on one element of the bible will cast doubt on it all, and therefore delegitimise it for you?

The majority of the story makes sense to me, with a few things I don't quite grasp yet. It has granted me a more comprehensive perspective of the world. The reason I'm so hard on evolution is that I don't think I would have been able to open my mind had I not considered the possibility that evolution may be wrong