“Swell- expression of info that is already present, and hten turnign that info on- Again you are NOT creating ANYTHING new via mutation- it’s a ‘johnny come lately’ attempt to, after the fact, look at the completed code, point out somethign that ‘changed’ (But hwich falls squarely, once again fully within species specific parameters, and claim it’s a ‘new and novel’ feature- which it certainly is not”
Huh? Of course the genes for teeth are already present, that’s the whole point of the experiment! Are you saying that it must be false because we don’t have the technology to re-engineer an entire genome? Even if we could, what would that prove besides that we’re really cruel to lab animals?
[[Are you saying that it must be false because we don’t have the technology to re-engineer an entire genome?]]
Nopwe- didn’t say it was false- I said the scientists are johnny come lately’s who are trying to manipulate code that is already present, and buffalo the public into htinking that the expression of previously turned-off gene functions somehow translates into Macroevolution, and can somehow, despite any evidence, account for the trillions of dissimilarities between species kinds, when infact, the ONLY way to introduce the absolutely necessary NON species specific info into a species to facilitate major morphological changes is via lateral gene transferences, which we know only occure between some low life bacteria of hte same KIND.
I’m saying, that just like in Miller’s supposed ‘explanation’ for the ‘evolution of higher blood clotting’ He and other scientists take code that is ALREADY PRESENT, and fantasize abotu how it ‘could have arisen’ and hten take the gigantic leap to extrapolation land and claim it did happen- the problem is though that it would take an icnredible INTELLIGENT DESIN in order to achieve their fantasy claims- when Miller’s ‘explanation’ for blood clotting evolution’ is examined, in detail, you will quickly come to realize just how incredibly complex it really is, and how much intelligent manipulation, protection, nurturing, and development really went into Miller’s ‘all natural’ ‘evolution of blood clotting’- He is taking code that already exists, decons tructing it, and htne claiming that because lower clotting systems exist, higher more complex ones must have simply naturally evolved- this is goign WAY beyond the actual facts, and infact shows just how much intelligent design really is needed. The panda’s ‘extra digit’ functions are nothign new- the info was already htere, and htere is NOTHING to state that info worked on via mistakes can not be of some use, but htis is a MUCH MUCH different proposition than is the issue of introducing trillions of NON species specific info which absolutely MUST have happeend in order to arrive at hte millions of different species kinds i nthe world bot present and extinct.
IF we’re havign trouble even describing insignificant poiojnts, then why am I to believe trillions of these changes and additions of new non species specific info occcured in the past, all without some form of higher metainfo controlling it? This metainfo didn’t just accumulate via chemical to chemist ‘evolution’ via mistakes in coding-
[[“Looks like I have to remain an unbeliever.”]]
No you don’t- ALL you have to do is look more objectively at hte actual evidence of science, it will lead you, as it did for the fella in one of my previous posts, to the conclusion that the evidence shows NOT Macroevbolution, as evos liek to claim, but rather special creation and discontinuity- it all just depends on which you wish to put your faith in- the actual evidences? Or someone’s projections of the evidences WAY beyond what hte actual evidences really show such as macroeovlutionists do.
IF You’ve accepted Christ as Savior, asked Him to forgive you of your sin- honestly and sincirly, then you are saved, and I’m not suggresting we are saved via science, or hsould put our trust in science, BUT I AM saying science just further strengthens God’s creation model when you look at it honestly and objectively and htrow out all the projections and assumptions that simply are NOT an actual representation of where the evidences lead.
Anyway- late- night- Macroevolution isn’t nearly as ‘solid’ as you’re told it is- or you’ve studied about- look closely, you’ll see how the hypothesis is propped up with assumptions and claims that lack evidence- everywhere you look in macroevolutionary claims it’s glues together with claims that simply do not fit the evidences. Also try to understand fully the difference between macro and microevolution- there is a big big difference, and micro can not biologically lead to macro- the ONLY thing that can bring about macroevolution is lateral gene transference, and even this has many serious problems associated with it when it’s tried to be extrapolated to continuity between species kinds (Again, built in species specific parameters prevent such manipulation, and again, species psecific metainfo simply doesn’t allow it). The problems with Macroevolution are NOT insignificant- they are serious death blows to the hypothesis, and presenting microevolution as though it was macroevolution, or ‘could lead to’ macro, won’t help the hypothesis one bit- they are two seperate biolgical processes- one a reality, the other a non reality that simply can’t happen biolgically, mathematically, naturally, or chemically.