Posted on 02/13/2009 8:34:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?
....
Are mutations really the “key to our evolution”? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, “God made the beasts of the earth after their kind” (Genesis 1:25)...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Really? Darwinism says evolutionary processes are responsible for our brains (as well as the rest of us)without reference to God.
But what words of the Bible do you take as inerrant and literally true? If any?
Exactly. And how many Christians do you see stating things like "God has no place in science class", or demands to keep from children that evolution itself IS intelligent design?
“...it’s just a good place to jump into the conversation... ;^)”
But you haven’t joined the conversation; you’ve just posted more scripture.
Did you actually read the scripture, since it speaks directly to the conversation?
So the bacteria can still digest esters and now also digest nylon. However, what did the gene do before that the frame shift removed? The answer cannot be "nothing because it was junk DNA that mutated", because you can't label something for which you haven't identified the purpose. And here's something else to ponder:
Most proteins cannot do this. For instance, most genes in the nematode have stop codons if they are frame-shifted. This special repetitive nature of protein-coding DNA sequences seems really rare; one biologist with whom I’ve discussed the matter has never seen another example like it. Maybe it’s more common in bacteria. Thus, contrary to Miller, the nylonase enzyme seems “pre-designed” in the sense that the original DNA sequence was preadapted for frame-shift mutations to occur without destroying the protein-coding potential of the original gene. Indeed, this protein sequence seems designed to be specifically adaptable to novel functions.
Source
You may describe as “shorthand” your “special” definition of Creationist, but I call it a sawed-off shotgun. Who gave you permission to hijack the lexicon and arbitrarily alter the meaning of a term? That’s the tactic of those who look to smear a whole class of people by demeaning their identity. There are any number of subclasses of Creationist. I’ve not bothered to run a count. Maybe you have. Whether or no, surely you must at least be as aware of the various subclasses as I. So, why do you use the generic term to describe this particular subclass? To do so seems to me to be a departure from the usual practice, requiring an explanation.
We’ve had prior conversations which indicate to me that you’re not one of those leftwing moonbats we see littering the landscape. So, I must ask, why are you using one of their devices? Unless, of course, previously you had just been stringing me along.
Let me see if I understand how this works:
Creationists are “almost invariably” (nearly always) Geocentrist FReepers.
Creationists “almost invariably” (nearly always) think Christ rode a dinosaur (or have a number in their head representing the number of dinosaurs Noah crammed into the Ark).
Creationists “almost invariably” (nearly always) reject HIV as the cause of AIDS. Departing for a moment here, correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand the above is the contrarian view of some scientists, fully credentialed, peer reviewed on a number of subjects including this issue, and holding positions of academic responsibility. That being the case, then why are you attacking ‘Creationists’ who cite these academics as authority for their positions? Why are you not attacking the academics who are at fault for the misinformation (if, indeed, it is misinformation)? It seems to me that your bloodlust is getting the better of your common sense.
And finally, Creationists “almost invariably” (nearly always) think ”Darwinian fanatics” are responsible for 9/11 (really?! who knew?).
And that’s how you clear the room with a single blast.
Sometimes it's hard to tell your friends from your enemies.
For all the derision against creationists for not using *legitimate* sources (aka *real scientists*) I fail to understand why the double standard on this one.
An explanation would be nice....
“This” until it sinks in...and yes evolution does deal with origins. It’s real convenient to say it doesn’t from time to time, but it’s simply not true because evolution doesn’t occur in a vacuum, it begins somewhere.
The website is ‘dissent from darwin’ after all.
“Really? Darwinism says evolutionary processes are responsible for our brains”
Perhaps that’s HOW he gave them to us...
No. I would rather have a conversation with the poster.
Don't hold your breath.
Good point. I would like to see the evolutionists try to prove the evolution of light, lol. To them, it's not really about proving science is wrong, more than it's about proving God's Word a farce. This reminds me of when God told Job, if he knew it all like he thought he did, then tell God where the light and the darkness goes. The pride of man is always in rebellion against God.
Very good post, Elsie. Thank you for that. That was a real blessing to me.
It can't work both ways, can it? LOL. See it doesn't really take a lot of logic to be an evolutionist, just a healthy dose of sophistry.
Right. Make out one part of the Bible to be a lie, and you can make all of it out to be a lie.
As has been asked before, what's it to them if people don't believe in the TOE? Why is it such an issue?
I don't care if they don't believe in creation but they won't live and let live.
I don’t care who you are, that is just too funny.
sound of crickets...
Speaking of predicting stuff, it the ToE ever going to be of more use than to predict where to find more fossils?
What’s the next step in evolution?
Can it be used to predict what the the long range effects that genetic engineering will have on life on this planet?
Perhaps He has said that He created man as man with his brain.
What sort of directed purposeful creation of man does Darwinism allow for?
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.