Maximus69:


Hmmm,
You'll prefer people swallow all these fabrications from your gods to sterilize everyone's hearts against accepting the truth regarding Creation, all you needed is spicing it up with huge grammars from the borrowed foreign language, that's all!
But if it's about the existence of God the root cause of Creation, you'll say 'i want to speak with him'

Feel free to believe your favourite book of mythological stories but don't misrepresent the facts that's what I am concerned with.

LordReed:


Feel free to believe your favourite book of mythological stories but don't misrepresent the facts that's what I am concerned with.

Misrepresentation is verified when your
THEORY has no
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS and thus is of no
BENEFITS

You can't insist a performing engineer is wrong simply because he is not applying your theory {which never worked} when the engineer is applying his own theory and everyone can see it WORKING!
Please your ego perhaps due to your high degree in English language is not what we're saying now. If the theory you were taught never worked, why not try the one that's working?

Maximus69:

If the theory you were taught never worked, why not try the one that's working?

He is very stupid if he holds on to a theory that doesn't work. Though how you know his theory does not work is a mystery to me since you've shown no evidence of understanding or assessing his theory.

Are you sure you aren't just working on the assumption of if it isn't your theory it must be failing, with no regard to evidence?

Maximus69:


Misrepresentation is verified when your
THEORY has no
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS and thus is of no
BENEFITS

You can't insist a performing engineer is wrong simply because he is not applying your theory {which never worked} when the engineer is applying his own theory and everyone can see it WORKING!
Please your ego perhaps due to your high degree in English language is not what we're saying now. If the theory you were taught never worked, why not try the one that's working?

Why do you people like talking off point like this?

LordReed:
And it has been explained to you again and again that the changes in morphology are a compounding of genetic changes over time, possibly millions if not billions of years. It is not any one genetic change that signals the change in morphology but you want us to give a magic show where lizards acquire wings and feathers over night. Those little genetic changes are the result of mutation but all you think about mutation is it produces misshapen monsters.

Understood. Now please explain the process whereby random mutations coalesce to produce coherent new genetic information - over any period of time. Simples .

Evolutionists often claim that evolution is real, that it is in fact happening as we speak. We are then told of the distinction between micro and macro-evolution, along with the wholly unsubstantiated claim that the micro is a precursor for macro.

Now, so called micro-evolution, better termed adaptation or even speciation, always happens within the limits of the extant genetic code. So tell us, are mutation the driver for adaptation in the same way they are for macro-evolution?

It sounds like to different processes are being described here, although they claim is that they are in essence one



Cheers
TV

TV01:

Understood. Now please explain the process whereby random mutations coalesce to produce coherent new genetic information - over any period of time. Simples .

Evolutionists often claim that evolution is real, that it is in fact happening as we speak. We are then told of the distinction between micro and macro-evolution, along with the wholly unsubstantiated claim that the micro is a precursor for macro.

Now, so called micro-evolution, better termed adaptation or even speciation, always happens within the limits of the extant genetic code. So tell us, are mutation the driver for adaptation in the same way they are for macro-evolution?

It sounds like to different processes are being described here, although they claim is that they are in essence one



Cheers

This is exactly why misinformation needs to be nipped in the bud. Micro and macro evolution are terms co-opted by creationist types to say "hey you see, evolution is a lie!". The only difference between the 2 is time scales. It's like saying the process that creates a canyon is not the same process of erosion that creates a gully.

So tell me does adaptation affect genetic information?

LordReed:


Why do you people like talking off point like this?

That's how satan will distracts from the work of the Lord my Lord and why you are warned that you must not think this battle against ignorance is one [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+6%3A12&version=NIV]against[/url] flesh and blood!

budaatum:

That's how satan will distracts from the work of the Lord my Lord and why you are warned that you must not think this battle against ignorance is one [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+6%3A12&version=NIV]against[/url] flesh and blood!

Oh my dear budaatum thou understandest my travails.

LordReed:


Oh my dear budaatum thou understandest my travails.

It is more important that you, my Lord, understand your travails. I commend your work here.

budaatum:

It is more important that you, my Lord, understand your travails. I commend your work here.

High praise my dear buda. Thanks.

LordReed:


Why do you people like talking off point like this?

OK!
So that was off point!

budaatum:
What is Evolution and how does it work? Evolution 101 provides the nuts-and-bolts on the patterns and mechanisms of evolution.

Is this a fact or a theory?

OpenYourEyes1:


Is this a fact or a theory?

What is the difference between scientific theories and facts?

LordReed:

What is the difference between scientific theories and facts?

Pls tell me.

OpenYourEyes1:


Pls tell me.

The number. A theory is made up of several facts.

LordReed:
This is exactly why misinformation needs to be nipped in the bud. Micro and macro evolution are terms co-opted by creationist types to say "hey you see, evolution is a lie!". The only difference between the 2 is time scales. It's like saying the process that creates a canyon is not the same process of erosion that creates a gully.

So tell me does adaptation affect genetic information?

You are now asking questions

If there is no distinction between micro and macro evolution or, this is only one that is made by creationists, pray tell, why are the drivers not identical? I believe I already asked this question - is it mutation that drives adaptation? Random mutation at that - Gotcha! .

So, actually, it is evolutionists who claim (macro) evolution is a thing, then point to adaptation (micro-evolution) as proof. However, the processes which drive the one are different to those claimed for the other - unravelling before your very eyes.

The process that builds a molehill is different form that which creates a mountain - oya, start climbing

And to your question - see integrity pimpin - if adaptation does affect genetic information, it does not create new content . Or does it?

Daaaayuuuuum. I'm good.



TV

LordReed:

The number. A theory is made up of several facts.

You should post the exact definition of theory here

TV01:

You are now asking questions

If there is no distinction between micro and macro evolution or, this is only one that is made by creationists, pray tell, why are the drivers not identical? I believe I already asked this question - is it mutation that drives adaptation? Random mutation at that - Gotcha! .

LoL you gotcha yersef. The drivers are exactly the same, it is you who persists in mislabeling things just so you can come back and say gotcha. Yes, adaptation is driven by mutation but here comes the kicker it's you who persists in calling it random mutation. Those of us who understand the theory know it is derived by natural pressures.

So, actually, it is evolutionists who claim (macro) evolution is a thing, then point to adaptation (micro-evolution) as proof. However, the processes which drive the one are different to those claimed for the other - unravelling before your very eyes.

Where did we say the process is different? It is exactly the same, compounded by extremely long times. It's not a magic show.

And to your question - see integrity pimpin - if adaptation does affect genetic information, it does not create new content . Or does it?

So after several adaptations, for example 4 adaptations over 70 generations, would generation 70 be the same as generation 1?

Daaaayuuuuum. I'm good.

Yes, good at dribbling your own shadow.

LordReed:
And it has been explained to you again and again that the changes in morphology are a compounding of genetic changes over time, possibly millions if not billions of years. It is not any one genetic change that signals the change in morphology but you want us to give a magic show where lizards acquire wings and feathers over night. Those little genetic changes are the result of mutation but all you think about mutation is it produces misshapen monsters.

And your remit sir - if indeed you/your TOE are able - is to explain the process, whereby over millions or billions of years, random mutations (which for some reason you called genetic changes, as if somehow they are structured & ordered) somehow coalesce into clearly ordered genetic information over time.

Such a concept may well hold ones imagination for a moment, but even the briefest scrutiny of the requirements for this to happen and the problems arising, will reveal it' as a non-starter. Sans faith that is

What mutations have been shown to produce is flawed output - given the scale and time period - which not only suggests that misshapen monsters are unlikely (other than dead on arrival), but that beautifully structured creatures are an impossibility with mutation as the driver.


TV

TV01:

And your remit sir - if indeed you/your TOE are able - is to explain the process, whereby over millions or billions of years, random mutations (which for some reason you called genetic changes, as if somehow they are structured & ordered) somehow coalesce into clearly ordered genetic information over time.

Such a concept may well hold ones imagination for a moment, but even the briefest scrutiny of the requirements for this to happen and the problems arising, will reveal it' as a non-starter. Sans faith that is

What mutations have been shown to produce is flawed output - given the scale and time period - which not only suggests that misshapen monsters are unlikely (other than dead on arrival), but that beautifully structured creatures are an impossibility with mutation as the driver.

No matter how many times we explain it to you, you will obstinately hold on to "mutation produces misshapen monsters, please show me a magic trick".

OpenYourEyes1:


You should post the exact definition of theory here

No, you do it.

LordReed:
LoL you gotcha yersef. The drivers are exactly the same, it is you who persists in mislabeling things just so you can come back and say gotcha. Yes, adaptation is driven by mutation but here comes the kicker it's you who persists in calling it random mutation. Those of us who understand the theory know it is derived by natural pressures.

So, adaptation is driven by mutation is your claim. My question is, does this "non-random", naturally driven mutation create novel genetic information, or merely drive different expressions of extant genetic content?

LordReed:
Where did we say the process is different? It is exactly the same, compounded by extremely long times. It's not a magic show.

Please respond to my question above. You have consistently avoided answering any direct questions.

LordReed:
So after several adaptations, for example 4 adaptations over 70 generations, would generation 70 be the same as generation 1?

Any difference or change would be within the extent of the information contained in that 1st generation. And, it certainly wouldn't be, or leading to, the kind of changes in morphology that would indicate new genetic information had been acquired or, it had become a different creature altogether.

LordReed:
Yes, good at dribbling your own shadow.

Don't hate


TV

^{...my day is made, unbelievers consoling themselves with the scriptures .}

TV01:
So, adaptation is driven by mutation is your claim. My question is, does this "non-random", naturally driven mutation create novel genetic information, or merely drive different expressions of extant genetic content?

Please respond to my question above. You have consistently avoided answering any direct questions.

How about you properly answer my previous question, does adaptation affect genetic information?

Any difference or change would be within the extent of the information contained in that 1st generation. And, it certainly wouldn't be, or leading to, the kind of changes in morphology that would indicate new genetic information had been acquired or, it had become a different creature altogether.

How about you answer the question instead of attempting to dribble your shadow once again. Question again: So after several adaptations, for example 4 adaptations over 70 generations, would generation 70 be the same as generation 1?

LordReed:


The number. A theory is made up of several facts.

WRONG!

THEORY simply means CLAIM and it remains just a claim until it is PRACTICALISED to get the BENEFITS.

Whatever you say or think in your brains remains your personal theory, you can only carry other intellectuals along when you make it a fact as you practice it and everyone sees the benefits. Then it will be well documented for future references, so that after you're gone everyone will continue to remember the one who discovered such a THEORY!

Maximus69:


WRONG!

THEORY simply means CLAIM and it remains just a claim until it is PRACTICALISED to get the BENEFITS.

Whatever you say or think in your brains remains your personal theory, you can only carry other intellectuals along when you make it a fact as you practice it and everyone sees the benefits. Then it will be well documented for future references, so that after you're gone everyone will continue to remember the one who discovered such a THEORY!

LMFAO!

LordReed:



LMFAO!

Ogbeni, you are a one sha . Since morning, you've refused to explain, demonstrate or otherwise evidence the process whereby organisms acquire novel genetic information which, over time leads to wholesale changes in morphology such that, they can become genetically different creatures. Yet you describe me as a dribbler

LordReed:
How about you properly answer my previous question, does adaptation affect genetic information?

To which I responded and shall respond again in a different manner;

1. Adaptation does not affect genetic code in such a way as to introduce new information
2. The extant genetic information is what dictates the limits of adaptation

LordReed:
How about you answer the question instead of attempting to dribble your shadow once again. Question again: So after several adaptations, for example 4 adaptations over 70 generations, would generation 70 be the same as generation 1?

And again. Yes it will be the same - with different expressions of the original genetic content. The same organism.

Are a snow-white blond woman from northern Europe and a pitch black brother form the Sahel different creatures - other than sex? Just because they have been raised apart over hundreds of generations. Will their union (apart form the usual possible defects) not be fertile.

Keep believing - without an iota of proof, or being able to empirically demonstrate - that adaptation leads to different creatures if extended out over eons. Keep deploying the "adaptation is evolution therefore macro-evolution is a fact" ruse-cum-switch & bait. E caaan done! God did it

No hatin' now


TV

TV01:
Ogbeni, you are a one sha . Since morning, you've refused to explain, demonstrate or otherwise evidence the process whereby organisms acquire novel genetic information which, over time leads to wholesale changes in morphology such that, they can become genetically different creatures. Yet you describe me as a dribbler

To which I responded and shall respond again in a different manner;

1. Adaptation does not affect genetic code in such a way as to introduce new information
2. The extant genetic information is what dictates the limits of adaptation

And again. Yes it will be the same - with different expressions of the original genetic content. The same organism.

Are a snow-white blond woman from northern Europe and a pitch black brother form the Sahel different creatures - other than sex? Just because they have been raised apart over hundreds of generations. Will their union (apart form the usual possible defects) not be fertile.

Keep believing - without an iota of proof, or being able to empirically demonstrate - that adaptation leads to different creatures if extended out over eons. Keep deploying the "adaptation is evolution therefore macro-evolution is a fact" ruse-cum-switch & bait. E caaan done! God did it

LoL speedy Gonzalez running faster than his shadow, answering questions that were not asked.

I am sorry I am not a magician and cannot give you a magic show.

LordReed:
LoL speedy Gonzalez running faster than his shadow, answering questions that were not asked.

I am sorry I am not a magician and cannot give you a magic show.

No one requested a magic show, just a clear cut explanation to a very basic question. All you had to offer was diversions about taxonomy, ruses about misshapen creatures, conflations and bare-faced avoidance .

No worries, I sincerely enjoy watching you pass sideways as opposed to a forward dribbler like me.


TV

TV01:

No one requested a magic show, just a clear cut explanation to a very basic question. All you had to offer was diversions about taxonomy, ruses about misshapen creatures, conflations and bare-faced avoidance .

No worries, I sincerely enjoy watching you pass sideways as opposed to a forward dribbler like me.

You continuously did. No matter how many times I attempt to illustrate the answer to you, you begin to do your shadow dribbling. I get it, you don't want to believe or clearly understand evolution because it flies in the face of the things you believe.

Here, someone who can example this better:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1neX9Jiyn9E

ATTN: TV01

LordReed:
Here, someone who can example this better:

ATTN: TV01

With the knowledge we have today, Darwinian evolution is a bankrupt notion, a busted flush. And the more we learn the more untenable it becomes. It lives on only as tenaciously defended dogma, not as cutting edge science and not as empirical fact.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE

Peace
TV