Posted on 08/02/2004 3:58:04 PM PDT by Renfield
The first sentence in this statement is true, the second sentence is not.
I stand by the no beneficial mutations statement.
So, the A-1 Milano gene and the increased strength mutation shown earlier in the thread does not qualify as a benefical mutation. O-kay.
What about sickle-cell anemia? Carriers of one sickle-cell allele are better-adapted to survive in environments where malaria is present. That doesn't qualify, either?
You show us a three legged man who can procreate and get a three legged baby, and we'll talk.
Why would you think that three legs is a beneficial mutation?
But I have no expectation that you would do other than lie as an act of desperation as all your arguments so far have been shot full of holes.
By this point, I'm really just laughing at you.
Clash Of The Titans was on the other night. That's pretty much what he's looking for.
Either that, or he has taken X-Men WAY too seriously.
Dogma as I said, is a matter of belief. Show me where I mis-defined it. Truth can be dogma but dogma isn't necessarily truth. I therefore drew the distinction to note that scripture is true whether I believe it or not. So it isn't a matter of personal, corporate or congregational dogma. I view scripture as utter truth. And it matters not a whit what I believe with regard to it - it will still be truth.
And no, I didn't "mistake" the record. I chose my words carefully. You stand on a pier and believe the ocean in front of you doesn't exist. If you run off the end of the pier, you're gonna get wet. If you can't swim, you may drown. Your dogma was that the ocean didn't exist. But the truth of the ocean may have killed you in this example because it's truth trumped your dogma. Need any more examples of the difference. Or do you consider yourself aptly corrected?
From Webster:
Dogma: An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.
The point, Havoc, is that creationists don't use and are not open to the "scientific method". You see scientists start with observations, then they see a pattern and form an hypothesis and then they further test it and if it withstands those tests it becomes a theory, WHICH CAN STILL BE CHANGED OR TOTALLY DISCARDED.
Creationists start with an immutable belief (a dogma - in this case Genesis) and then they try to find facts that support it. But, regardless of whether or not they find any, their belief is NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
I would only ask you to think about this - you don't have to answer me - simply ponder this within yourself. Is there anything, any evidence that could be presented to you that would make you change your beliefs? Are you even open to that?
Arghhh, VR! "Youse guys" don't "argue," you assert. Notice the above four sentences. We have three bland assertions, and the last sentence can be interpreted either as suggesting that one's opponent is ("genuinely") ignorant or has an ax to grind (the "studiously ignore" part) or is just "pretending" not to know what is so obvious to you (the opponent is operating in bad faith).
Instead of following this futile procedure, why don't you just tell me what you think Darwin got right?
Whether it is an advantage or not, it wouldn't make it to a second generation. You deal with what you want to and attempt to avoid the point being made.
Such as bats' evolutionary ancestors, which were wingless, were somehow still "bats?"
Oh, I see, so the problem here is in the name - not the substance of the issue. Again avoidance in order to distract.
Such as "snakes never show any evidence of hip or leg bones because I say so?"
Restating the argument. It has nothing to do with whether I say so or not. I pointedly argued for proof that this was a leg and hip bone rather than allowing you to argue over appearances. Again, avoidance of the substance but this time using incredulity that nobody just up and believed it because it was stated as matter of fact.
Such as how certain Antarctic birds swim with "fins?"
You label them wings, I'm sure. I label them fins because that's the actual purpose they serve. Penguins don't fly - not through the air at any rate. So, yes, they have fins. Again, incredulity and avoidance.
Such as the condition humans experience when they surface too quickly from deep ocean dives is called, "the benze?"
Ah, yes, this one is just me not using the spell button. It's always proof that someone else is right because the other side mispelled a word trying to answer in haste. Avoidance again.
Such as "there are no transitionals except for the transitionals which are fully formed?"
Mistating the case. Avoiding the point made.
Yes, dear Havoc, we have a lot to learn from you.
No, I think you have a lot to learn in general. Like if you need a name for a fictitious unwinged bat, ask for a name instead of using such a non-issue as a poor excuse to avoid the argument at hand and pretend you've been wronged. Like how to stick to the subject when an arbitrary example is given instead of wandering off on a different issue and protesting something that wasn't part of the discussion to begin with... get the point. What you complain about when you pile the stuff up to whine professionally and pick fun as if to say "look, debate tactic in use, we're winning because I'm accusing this guy of a bunch of stuff.." Is as telling as your non-arguments in the actual discussion.
No. You've made one error in your argument - you cannot prove scripture is true (" And it matters not a whit what I believe with regard to it - it will still be truth."). Your ocean analogy (it being wet) is false.
Both statements are true. I stated why and didn't elaborate to great detail.
So, the A-1 Milano gene and the increased strength mutation shown earlier in the thread does not qualify as a benefical mutation. O-kay.
Is it genetically passed on. I do believe I qualified my remarks so as to avoid this dodge.
What about sickle-cell anemia? Carriers of one sickle-cell allele are better-adapted to survive in environments where malaria is present. That doesn't qualify, either?
No, I don't believe that qualifies as much of anything. I would cite the list of everchanging 'what causes cancer' foods as a basis for my disbelief on this. I don't believe that the trait itself is anymore responsible for malaria immunity than eating coconut pulp might be. But simply because I'm used to seeing these sorts of things constantly overturned.
Why would you think that three legs is a beneficial mutation?
Who said it's about the three legs. You're avoiding the core issue. I'm sure you are laughing because when you can't answer you haven't much anywhere else to go - do you. This proves the point as much as anything. Here we are after all this time and you guys are stuck in the unseemly position of having to squirrel your way out of issues you can't address (because they show your empty hand) or in mistating the opponent, for the same reason, or any number of other things. You have support for something here, I'm sure - just not evolution.
I'd hardly call sickle cell a beneficial mutation. It is a loss of genetic information.
No its not a loss. It is a different form of the hemoglobin gene. It packs together differently than the normal type and makes red blood cells resistant to malaria infection. (Too much of it causes disease).
Your point about the egg, though, is a good one. And your evidence RNA based organisms didn't have an eggshell is...?
How is a replacement of one base with another base a loss of information?
Maybe it's a loss of hydraulic information?
Both are genetically passed on, yes.
No, I don't believe that qualifies as much of anything. I would cite the list of everchanging 'what causes cancer' foods as a basis for my disbelief on this. I don't believe that the trait itself is anymore responsible for malaria immunity than eating coconut pulp might be.
Strange. So, the fact that some foods don't cause cancer leads you to conclude that the well-documented proof that being a carrier of one sickle-cell allele grants resistance to malaria is wrong? ROFLMAO
Who said it's about the three legs. You're avoiding the core issue.
If you would tell us what the core issue is, it would make things so much easier.
"How does life happen in a closed system?"
I've no idea at all..............
OK... Evolution is the creation of new genetic material. Sickle Cell Anemia is not the creation of new genetic material, it is a loss of genetic information if anything.
That RNA based organisms are hypothetical(viruses don't count, they cannot self-replicate and they have a protein shell--something evidently precluded by this "Thomas Cech earned the Nobel Prize in 1989 for discovering that this isn't always true.").
And while you are at it also complain to MIT.
Because of the extra hydroxyl group on the sugar, RNA is too bulky to form a a stable double helix. RNA exists as a single-stranded molecule. However, regions of double helix can form where there is some base pair complementation (U and A , G and C), resulting in hairpin loops. The RNA molecule with its hairpin loops is said to have a secondary structure.
The point of this discussion, is that it is almost a consensus that RNA is too unstable a molecule to be the origin of life. But you can believe otherwise, eggshells included.
A better statement of the 1st law would be "the total energy of a closed system is constant".
How does life happen in a closed system?
Local energy flow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.