TV01:
Exactly, there are number of unknowns, some degree of uncertainty based on our limited grasp of the event and the detail provided. However, you can't simply dismiss the possibility because it doesn't fit into your limited understanding or match your expectations. We know things lived longer, grew bigger and the earth is in fact suffering the effects of corruption.

I am dismissing it because it shows that whoever the authors were, they had no idea that our civilisation will advance to the point where stories like this would be able to be verified if indeed they were true. Even with the limited details given in the story we can find no evidence to back it up. No ark, no geological evidence, an impossible spread of animal species if the tale were true, known physical impossibilities, etc.

2 of every "kind". I am unable to give exact numbers.

So how do you know this ark was sufficient? Also how many animal and insect kinds exist today?

Funny that, it's kind of like now, the ark of our salvation has been prepared in Christ Jesus - many decline to board

We'll board when you can prove such an ark exists.

LordReed:
Is there any further need to engage with you if you are just going to wilfully misrepresent the theory?

...sounds like your cue to tap out - no problem, you have form . Read the very first page of this thread. A creature that wasn't a human being or an ape, over time "evolved" into both.

Common ancestry, is a fundamental plank of the neo/Darwinian theory of evolution. So, if a common ancestor "evolved" into the various classes of ape, it would need to acquire new genetic content to do so. To express the change in morphology.

By what natural process does this occur? Has it been observed or otherwise demonstrated by experiment. And we are not talking about adaptation here - which no one disputes.

LordReed:
No where does the theory say organisms turn into different lifeforms.

That's exactly what it claims from one kind of a creature to another. Via random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection etc. But this has never been observed, or demonstrated, so it's not hypothesis or theory, and it is certainly not science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

LordReed:
It has been explain over and over again that the cumulative genetic shifts are what produce a new species and over time those become more and more specialised. But you'll just go on to "show me a monkey turning into a human being".

Please detail how these "cumulative genetic shifts" act as a mechanism for creatures to capture new genetic information that enables them to express wholesale changes to morphology, such that a creature that is not an ape, or a proto-ape, is able to "evolve" into the various types of apes including humans - I repeat not adaptation

LordReed:
Describe to you mutation which you say is not the natural process? No, I am not masochistic.

Semantics, scientism and now slight of hand. The trajectory is clear . I never claimed mutation is not a natural process. What I said is that mutation has not been shown to be the mechanism whereby creatures acquire the new information for wholesale morphological changes (it simply does not have the creative power to do so, being almost totally negative or neutral).

Changes within species are always within the limits of the genome. The kind of wholesale morphological changes evolution postulates requires a mechanism whereby new genetic code can be captured. Could the hearty proclaimers of TOE kindly advise what this is .


TV

TV01:
...sounds like your cue to tap out - no problem, you have form . Read the very first page of this thread. A creature that wasn't a human being or an ape, over time "evolved" into both.

Common ancestry, is a fundamental plank of the neo/Darwinian theory of evolution. So, if a common ancestor "evolved" into the various classes of ape, it would need to acquire new genetic content to do so. To express the change in morphology.

Yet you keep saying you understand the theory. What kind of creature changed into another according to the theory? How is "we have a common ancestor" equal to one kind changing to another kind? Because I am sure you are using your version of kind which the theory does not use.

Speciation is branches of a larger family becoming more specialised in their ecological niche. Polar bears are not found anywhere else than the arctic circle because they have become specialised to their environment, yet they are still bears.

By what natural process does this occur? Has it been observed or otherwise demonstrated by experiment. And we are not talking about adaptation here - which no one disputes.

That's exactly what it claims from one kind of a creature to another. Via random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection etc. But this has never been observed, or demonstrated, so it's not hypothesis or theory, and it is certainly not science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

Please detail how these "cumulative genetic shifts" act as a mechanism for creatures to capture new genetic information that enables them to express wholesale changes to morphology, such that a creature that is not an ape, or a proto-ape, is able to "evolve" into the various types of apes including humans - I repeat not adaptation

What is adaptation?

Semantics, scientism and now slight of hand. The trajectory is clear . I never claimed mutation is not a natural process. What I said is that mutation has not been shown to be the mechanism whereby creatures acquire the new information for wholesale morphological changes (it simply does not have the creative power to do so, being almost totally negative or neutral).

Changes within species are always within the limits of the genome. The kind of wholesale morphological changes evolution postulates requires a mechanism whereby new genetic code can be captured. Could the hearty proclaimers of TOE kindly advise what this is .

So what does mutation do to genetic information?

EDIT: Watch this -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18YwBwIK_no


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvpQ5Lyah50

And this one by a bible believing christian


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaeGfV-N2kM

Holá,

Common descent is a central plank of TOE. It is clear that individual creatures replicate according to the information/data in their genome. It is also clear that all creatures have a unique genome.

The question, which so far no one has responded to, is how is the code which drives the changes in morphology acquired? What is the natural mechanism or process behind it?

If apes and humans had a common ancestor, what natural process drove the changes in the original creature's genome, thereby gaving rise to a range of creatures with different genomes - i.e. gorillas, chimpanzees, humans


Cheers
TV

^{BTW, I had already watched the first video - not too long ago actually. It's a load of assertions and "evidence" claimed to support evolution, at one point he claimed a billion times more evidence. But nothing to answer the question I asked.}

LordReed:


Yet you keep saying you understand the theory. What kind of creature changed into another according to the theory? How is "we have a common ancestor" equal to one kind changing to another kind? Because I am sure you are using your version of kind which the theory does not use.

Speciation is branches of a larger family becoming more specialised in their ecological niche. Polar bears are not found anywhere else than the arctic circle because they have become specialised to their environment, yet they are still bears.



What is adaptation?



So what does mutation do to genetic information?

EDIT: Watch this -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18YwBwIK_no


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvpQ5Lyah50

And this one by a bible believing christian


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaeGfV-N2kM

TV01:
Holá,

Common descent is a central plank of TOE. It is clear that individual creatures replicate according to the information/data in their genome. It is also clear that all creatures have a unique genome.

The question, which so far no one has responded to, is how is the code which drives the changes in morphology acquired? What is the natural mechanism or process behind it?

If apes and humans had a common ancestor, what natural process drove the changes in the original creature's genome, thereby gaving rise to a range of creatures with different genomes - i.e. gorillas, chimpanzees, humans


Cheers
TV

^{BTW, I had already watched the first video - not too long ago actually. It's a load of assertions and "evidence" claimed to support evolution, at one point he claimed a billion times more evidence. But nothing to answer the question I asked.}

You repeatedly said you don't want the mechanism to be mutation and in response to your gripe with mutation I asked you what does mutation do to genetic information.

Cheers.

LordReed:
You repeatedly said you don't want the mechanism to be mutation and in response to your gripe with mutation I asked you what does mutation do to genetic information.

Cheers.

If you are able to demonstrate or provide empirical evidence that proves mutation is the natural mechanism whereby organism acquire new genetic information then fine. I have only asked for a description and evidence of the process.

Having said that, what we know about mutation in no way suggests that it would enable an organism to acquire new genetic information;

1. Mutation is always on pre-existing information - it does not in it's own right create information or introduce new traits
2. It is almost always deleterious
3. It does not change or act as a pre-cursor for a creature to change into something else - the creatures always remain the same

I have no gripe with mutation, any gripe would be with those who try and pass it off as something it has not been shown to be and, doing something it has not been demonstrated it is able.

Can a simple response to the original question please be provided.


Danke
TV

TV01:

If you are able to demonstrate or provide empirical evidence that proves mutation is the natural mechanism whereby organism acquire new genetic information then fine. I have only asked for a description and evidence of the process.

Having said that, what we know about mutation in no way suggests that it would enable an organism to acquire new genetic information;

1. Mutation is always on pre-existing information - it does not in it's own right create information or introduce new traits
2. It is almost always deleterious
3. It does not change or act as a pre-cursor for a creature to change into something else - the creatures always remain the same

I have no gripe with mutation, any gripe would be with those who try and pass it off as something it has not been shown to be and, doing something it has not been demonstrated it is able.

Can a simple response to the original question please be provided.


Danke
TV

You have a limited understanding of what is considered mutation.

Mutations may also result from insertion or deletion of segments of DNA due to mobile genetic elements.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

[]

TV01:

If you are able to demonstrate or provide empirical evidence that proves mutation is the natural mechanism whereby organism acquire new genetic information then fine. I have only asked for a description and evidence of the process.

Having said that, what we know about mutation in no way suggests that it would enable an organism to acquire new genetic information;

acquire new genetic information the reason you keep asking questions like this is because you do not know evolution as much as you think. or you've read some information- obviously christian biased- debunking the concept of evolution.
all sensible biblical scholars or fundamentalist have all agreed that evolution is taking place at least within species.

1. Mutation is always on pre-existing information - it does not in it's own right create information or introduce new traits

not quite my friend.
INFORMATION is processed data. your question correctly asked should substitute information with data. when MUTATION occurs there is change in data hence change in information. in the sense that you asked your question, no, no new information. rather data is processed into another information.
you probably know that the DNA comprises of four nuclueotide namely ATCG. lets say each of this letters represents a colour.
A- RED
T-BLUE
C-GREEN
G-PURPLE.

if you mix RED and BLUE you get a color,

if you mix RED,BLUE, and GREEN, you should also get a colour. when it comes to colours the intensity and the quantity is very important. any slight change in the quantity of RED you apply to the mixture would result in variations of the product which would vary in contrast of the colour or even produce a different colour entirely. eg lets say to get colour yellow you must sum
50ml RED+ 60ml GREEN.
if you reduce the quantity of RED to 45ml you might get "light yellow", if you increase the quantity of green , you would also get a colour that is closer to the GREEN spectrum. and so on and so forth.

The same thing happens with genes. The mutation of just a single segment of gene might lead to a life time of unending pain or a life time of unparalleled splendor. we know for a fact that genes do play a role in shaping behaviour of organisms. the mecahnism is not understood that much as of now. some people are born with uncontrollable anger which in a normal civilized society is hazadarous. on the other hand some people like myself are born with remarkable calmness that its almost like they feel no anger. in todays society people like me would go a very long way when it comes to socialism compared to the person with anger issues.

a person with anger issues may have for example 32000 base pairs coding for that character, lets do this to represent ATTCGATT
You would think that because a calm person is more equipped to survive todays world would have more information than the angry man but no.
the dna of the calm guy may hold the exact same number of nucleotide- 32000. but the difference would be AATCGATC

2. It is almost always deleterious

the moslty deleterious ones eventually fade off. but the lucky folks like yourself and i still wake up each morning to listen to silly nigerian politics.

3. It does not change or act as a pre-cursor for a creature to change into something else - the creatures always remain the same

mutation doesnt work like that. no oga sir. but it is the fundamental basis of evolution. mutation, speciation, migration,

I have no gripe with mutation, any gripe would be with those who try and pass it off as something it has not been shown to be and, doing something it has not been demonstrated it is able.

my people perish for lack of knowlede. check these



i think budaatum recently shared a link with some images illustrating how an organism divergies from its ancestral linage. buda kindly refer tv01 to that post of yours please.
besides how do you want us to prove something no scientist in his lifetime or a thousand generation can observe. evolution takes years, millions of it.

kkins25:

i think budaatum recently shared a link with some images illustrating how an organism divergies from its ancestral linage. buda kindly refer tv01 to that post of yours please.

Please go back and read your full post. Basically, you are asking buda to go and dig up pearls that were given and cast aside by those they were given to and give them to the same person who is now poor and blinded by their own ignorant preconceived ideas which they refuse to abandon and become rich regardless of the pearls cast before them as if it is not written in the God Book they read that they should abandon their preconceived ideas and enter their mother's belly and be reborn then seek with their new eyes or they will find not. I suppose they might not know that understanding is the thing to be sought.

And for that is my gratitude to those who have engaged in pearl casting immense. They seek not, yet here you are seeking for them and feeding it to them, but in their darkness of poverty they eat not and starve. Yet, even if the person you are directly rubbing spat on mud in their eyes cannot understand, there are thousands of other readers whose eyes open by your efforts here so thank you. Your light evolves minds. And whether they like to admit it or not, they know their minds evolve or they will just become extinct!

TV01:

If you are able to demonstrate or provide empirical evidence that proves mutation is the natural mechanism whereby organism acquire new genetic information then fine.

Sounds like when the atheist says, "if you are able to demonstrate or provide empirical evidence that God exists then I too shall believe".

LordReed:


You have a limited understanding of what is considered mutation.

Mutations may also result from insertion or deletion of segments of DNA due to mobile genetic elements.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

I agree - in fact, absolutely. Indeed if you knew the extent of my limitations eh. Especially were those who don grasp omnipotence dey

All I ask is that you kind sir - or anyone who so cares - explains to me how mutation, even in conjunction with genetic drift, natural selection etc., give rise to the new genetic information that enables creatures to undergo the morphological changes that evolution claims.

Please don't drag me into the deep waters of "mutation" in order to drown me, or attempt strangulation by entangling me in semantics. A simple answer for a simpleton as it were .

From the link you most kindly posted;

Mutation can result in many different types of change in sequences. Mutations in genes can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Mutations can also occur in nongenic regions. One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial.[8] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent or correct mutations by reverting the mutated sequence back to its original state.[5]

I don suffer - see the kind kickin' I dey take here

TV

kkins25:
acquire new genetic information the reason you keep asking questions like this is because you do not know evolution as much as you think. or you've read some information- obviously christian biased- debunking the concept of evolution.

I agree and I confess - to both charges

kkins25:
all sensible biblical scholars or fundamentalist have all agreed that evolution is taking place at least within species.

"Evolution" as in adaptation sure. As in macro-evolution - i.e. creatures undergoing wholesale changes in morphology over time? No sir. And I ain't no scholar

kkins25:
not quite my friend.
INFORMATION is processed data. your question correctly asked should substitute information with data. when MUTATION occurs there is change in data hence change in information. in the sense that you asked your question, no, no new information. rather data is processed into another information.
Semantics. I could as well use the word code.

[quote author=kkins25 post=79906291]you probably know that the DNA comprises of four nuclueotide namely ATCG. lets say each of this letters represents a colour.
A- RED
T-BLUE
C-GREEN
G-PURPLE.

if you mix RED and BLUE you get a color,

if you mix RED,BLUE, and GREEN, you should also get a colour. when it comes to colours the intensity and the quantity is very important. any slight change in the quantity of RED you apply to the mixture would result in variations of the product which would vary in contrast of the colour or even produce a different colour entirely. eg lets say to get colour yellow you must sum
50ml RED+ 60ml GREEN.
if you reduce the quantity of RED to 45ml you might get "light yellow", if you increase the quantity of green , you would also get a colour that is closer to the GREEN spectrum. and so on and so forth.

Danke! Thank you for the lesson - if only you'd answer the simpl,e question repeatedly asked - abi na data ?

kkins25:
The same thing happens with genes. The mutation of just a single segment of gene might lead to a life time of unending pain or a life time of unparalleled splendor.

Ah, ah! See claim Are you able to provide examples of the bolded?

kkins25:
we know for a fact that genes do play a role in shaping behaviour of organisms. the mecahnism is not understood that much as of now. some people are born with uncontrollable anger which in a normal civilized society is hazadarous. on the other hand some people like myself are born with remarkable calmness that its almost like they feel no anger. in todays society people like me would go a very long way when it comes to socialism compared to the person with anger issues.

a person with anger issues may have for example 32000 base pairs coding for that character, lets do this to represent ATTCGATT
You would think that because a calm person is more equipped to survive todays world would have more information than the angry man but no.
the dna of the calm guy may hold the exact same number of nucleotide- 32000. but the difference would be AATCGATC

the moslty deleterious ones eventually fade off. but the lucky folks like yourself and i still wake up each morning to listen to silly nigerian politics.

mutation doesnt work like that. no oga sir. but it is the fundamental basis of evolution. mutation, speciation, migration,

my people perish for lack of knowlede. check these

How?

kkins25:
i think budaatum recently shared a link with some images illustrating how an organism divergies from its ancestral linage. buda kindly refer tv01 to that post of yours please.

I'm not after a picture book, just an answer to the repeatedly asked question please. That divergence eventually - as claimed - leads to totally different creatures with unique DNA. What is the natural process behind these pretty pictures .

kkins25:
besides how do you want us to prove something no scientist in his lifetime or a thousand generation can observe. evolution takes years, millions of it.

So, it's not observable, but fact, it's not empirical but science, you can't prove it but it's true - yet, I'm the religious extremist .


TV

TV01:

I agree - in fact, absolutely. Indeed if you knew the extent of my limitations eh. Especially were those who don grasp omnipotence dey

All I ask is that you kind sir - or anyone who so cares - explains to me how mutation, even in conjunction with genetic drift, natural selection etc., give rise to the new genetic information that enables creatures to undergo the morphological changes that evolution claims.

Please don't drag me into the deep waters of "mutation" in order to drown me, or attempt strangulation by entangling me in semantics. A simple answer for a simpleton as it were .

From the link you most kindly posted;


I don suffer - see the kind kickin' I dey take here

TV

This picture is in the linked article and they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

“We wouldn’t let a first century dentist fill our children’s teeth, so why are we letting theologians from the same period fill their heads? The world isn’t flat. The sun and stars do not revolved around us. And yes, we evolved over billions of years. Isn’t it glorious!” exclaims Michael Dowd.

“It’s no wonder that Bible-believing born again Christians have roundly and rightfully, in my opinion, rejected evolution,” shares Dowd. “Who wants to forsake their faith and family for a meaningless, mechanistic, Godless existence with no hope of Heaven? I sure didn’t, and no amount of evidence was going to change my mind. Then, I had a road to Damascus experience. The most Christ-like man that I had ever met, a Buddhist-come-Catholic monk, opened my eyes to a holy way of seeing the 13.7 billion year epic of evolution. For the first time in my life, my head and heart were in harmony. I knew then and there that I would devote my ministry to evangelizing evolution, not just as theory, but as a new theology, a way to really walk with God.”

His new book Thank GOD for EVOLUTION–published in paperback this summer by Plume–celebrates science as sacred and has been publicly praised by religious leaders from priests to rabbis, and prominent scientists, including 6 Nobel Prize winners–a NASA senior astrophysicist among them.
Christian evangelist calls on believers to accept evolution

Download free 5.8mb pdf copy. Link updated

LordReed:


This picture is in the linked article and they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

How does this answer the question about how organisms acquire novel and coherent genetic information that codes for changes in morphology?

You really don't have any answers do you


Cheers
TV

wirinet:

So how many kinds of birds and how many kinds of animals are there according to your classification of kinds? Are Ostrich, dove, sparrow, chicken, Turkey the same kind or different kinds of birds? What of Dogs, are wolves, foxes and jackals the same kind or different kinds? What of hyenas?
Also tell me is Bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas are same or different kinds with humans. You guys need to publish your classification of kinds, so others can understand.


What of camels llamas and giraffes are they the same kind with horses? Then there are bison, African buffalo, water buffalo, antelopes, wildebeest, impala, gazelles, sheep, goats, muskoxen, and domestic cattle are they all the same kind?
As I said provide a well written journal of your classification according to kinds.


That is written above is absolutely nonsense. It looks like something a schizophrenic would write. Anyway, you guys already say, that a holy spirit is required to understand such rubbish.
Now interprete these tautologies;
God formed the world "in and out of the waters - Does this mean the earth is formed inside water and out of water?

There is still water above and below the earth - What is meant by above and below the earth? Does that include space?

windows of heaven were opened and the waters of the deep released - windows where?

Look up, why is the sky blue? - We all know why the sky is blue and sometimes orange and even red.



Nonsense.

You did not answer his question. Why is the sky blue?

that's god favourite colour

hahn:

You did not answer his question. Why is the sky blue?

TV01:
How does this answer the question about how organisms acquire novel and coherent genetic information that codes for changes in morphology?

You really don't have any answers do you


Cheers
TV

When you scramble cat to get act are you still describing the same thing with the 2 words?

Meanwhile when are you going to tell me what a kind means.

LordReed:
When you scramble cat to get act are you still describing the same thing with the 2 words?

If the letters c, a & t are characters in a communicable code, language or communication lexicon, then no - unless of course the characters somehow happen represent the exact same thing, unlikely I'm sure all will agree. Having said that, a mere scrambling does not mean that the letters remain coherent or legible.

And, mutation is not a scrambling, it's a degredation of the code. Mutation cannot drive the acquisition of novel code. Along with natural selection, it only acts on existing code. It is almost always deleterious or at best neutral. Even where the effects of mutation may be deemed to afford some advantage, it still comes with a loss of code.

LordReed:
Meanwhile when are you going to tell me what a kind means.

That was always a side-issue, if not a footnote, to impress that the commonly used taxonomy for classifying living things is not the only one that can be applied and, even with that, there are always grey areas and points of contention.

But I'll attempt to shed some light. All the elephantine type creatures would have been a kind - including the currently extant Indian and African elephants and any extinct ones, such as the woolly mammoth. Hope that helps.

Now, back to the question



Cheers
TV

TV01:

If the letters c, a & t are characters in a communicable code, language or communication lexicon, then no - unless of course the characters somehow happen represent the exact same thing, unlikely I'm sure all will agree. Having said that, a mere scrambling does not mean that the letters remain coherent or legible.

Sure mere scrambling will not get you to coherence but when there is only a limited number of ways in which the letters can be arranged then every time it is scrambled there exists a non-zero possibility that it will achieve coherence.

And, mutation is not a scrambling, it's a degredation of the code. Mutation cannot drive the acquisition of novel code. Along with natural selection, it only acts on existing code. It is almost always deleterious or at best neutral. Even where the effects of mutation may be deemed to afford some advantage, it still comes with a loss of code.

Why do you persist with this same definition of mutation when I have shown you that mutation is not always degenerative? Look at that picture again, is it only loss that is depicted there?

That was always a side-issue, if not a footnote, to impress that the commonly used taxonomy for classifying living things is not the only one that can be applied and, even with that, there are always grey areas and points of contention.

But I'll attempt to shed some light. All the elephantine type creatures would have been a kind - including the currently extant Indian and African elephants and any extinct ones, such as the woolly mammoth. Hope that helps.

This does not help. How do we know what kind of creatures fit into a kind? What parameters are used to determine a kind and the creatures that would fit into it? If you can't explain what a kind is can you at least provide a resource that does?

Thanks to budaatum.
How can we know that humans love to talk this much and do everything within their capability to convince themselves that the source of life needed to be studied and fully understood?

Hmmm, simply because they don't want to be tutored on how to live but seeking a way to teach others, they've sort out many complicating schemes! Ecclesiastes 7:29

Now they've declared themselves GUILTY of the accusation levelled against them {Psalms 5:10} for if it's true that they sincerely meant what they're saying, why are they now fabricating all of these just to arrive nowhere? Roman 1:20-23

Maximus69:
Thanks to budaatum.
How can we know that humans love to talk this much and do everything within their capability to convince themselves that the source of life needed to be studied and fully understood?

Shouldn't one study and understand the source of life? And who is it that one must be tutored by if not those who have studied and understood?

God gave humans senses for a purpose. Those who don't use them will have the little sense they may have [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=ESV]taken[/url] from them while those who study and understand will "Be fruitful and increase in number, and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground” and will be blessed.

budaatum:

Shouldn't one study and understand the source of life? And who is it that one must be tutored by if not those who have studied and understood?

God gave humans senses for a purpose. Those who don't use them will have the little sense they may have [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A14-30&version=ESV]taken[/url] from them while those who study and understand will "Be fruitful and increase in number, and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground” and will be blessed.

Thank you! Thank you!! Thank you!!! again and again and again for this!

(1) The Bible confirmed that we must be taught God's word! Deuteronomy 6:6-7
(2) Our tutors should be those given divine wisdom to impact knowledge to others! Hebrews 13:7

Well in a bid to criticize this established fact as found in the book, all these atheists are fabricating one theory after another just to say NO to the idea.
They've developed modern technology that surpasses the equipments used by those writers so why should they succumb to the thoughts and words of those ancient writers? They knew quite well that all other books written are outdated {including the ones fabricated by ancient atheists} so they concluded that they shouldn't be submitted to the ideas found in an old book like the Bible written over thousands of years ago!
They don't want to agree that anyone should teach them. NO! not from that ancient book, yet they insist on teaching others!

Maximus69:


Thank you! Thank you!! Thank you!!! again and again and again for this!

Well in a bid to criticize that established fact as found in the book, all these atheists are fabricating one theory after another just to say NO to the idea.
They don't want to agree that anyone should teach them yet they insist on teaching others!

I might be missing your point. There is a stage in life when one is tutored, but when one stops being a child one should study instead. Is it not for this reason the Holy Spirit was sent to all?

As to teaching others on here, perhaps consider we are exchanging opinions, though some are obviously arrogantly claiming to know it all and therefore assume to tutor, but that which proves to be cream will rise to the top while that which isn't will sink.

Many tend to completely disregard interbreeding when considering evolution.

Our distant ancestors interbred with the Neanderthals and other hominin species.

The Later Stone Age Calvaria from Iwo Eleru, Nigeria: Morphology and Chronology

hahn:


You did not answer his question. Why is the sky blue?

Light rays from the sun are scattered by air particles. Visible light from the sun as you may already know contains several spectra -waves with different wavelength, coincidentally the air particles scatters light that is closer to the blue spectrum. so the sky appears blue because light scatters blue light in the sunlight more rapidly than other wavelengths such as red, orange,etc.

kkins25:
Light rays from the sun are scattered by air particles. Visible light from the sun as you may already know contains several spectra -waves with different wavelength, coincidentally the air particles scatters light that is closer to the blue spectrum. so the sky appears blue because light scatters blue light in the sunlight more rapidly than other wavelengths such as red, orange,etc.

Well you've tried Sir,
True Christians will keep mute because we know that the one asking is not interested in what we have to say.

Atheism is not about God but logical reasoning to tackle MIND CONTROLLING!

The sky is blue simply because 70% of the earth is water so the atmosphere reflects the color of the sea, which is BLUE!

TV01:
How does this answer the question about how organisms acquire novel and coherent genetic information that codes for changes in morphology?

You really don't have any answers do you


Cheers
TV

this guy self, an increase in genetic information does not always imply that the organism is going to acquire a new trait. now you are going to make me repeat myself; mutation like lordreed has already told you over and over again, so also as budaatum but it seems your skull is thicker than titanium- does not only mean a change in sequence(which i believe you think is only deleterious) but also involves addition of dna sequence in processes known as insertion,duplication,deletion,inversion and translocation.

An organism can acquire new genetic information by
1) losing genetic information, : you might wonder how does a loss of gene result in a gain in genetic information? but a simple deletion in a gene codec would most times result in noticeable phenotypic expressions.

2) substitution of genetic information: on nairaland, to bold a text you have to use the "{b}" tag for example, i have used the tag for this text. [b if i miss out an element of the bold tag like the "]" then the text does not appear bold[/b] this is how DNA works. when a gene is missing, duplicated or altered we get a different result.

3) duplication of genetic information: duplication of information can lead to advantageous consequences as we frequently see in plants but deleterious as we see in animals. klinefelter syndrome is an example in humans.

4) mechanical insertion by another another organism(naturally by viruses and bacteria, and artificially by humans via gene editing); yeah, virus are fond of installing their own dna into the hosts'.

Now imagine if guys with six toes and fingers were the ones girls were tripping for, probably because they appeared more sexy or they made more money or for some reason. As time goes on the children with six toes and fingers would increase. before you know it, these children would start marrying themselves and boooom! we have an explosion of six digit individuals. since every body wants to marry a six digit female or male, the five digit female and males would be less desired by the society. consequently fading out(over a long period of time of course].


this is an example of random evolution triggered by spontaneous genetic shuffling.


humans are the most complex of species, but that those not mean we have a higher number of genes. a Dog has 36 chromosomes, plants can have 100s. so acquisition of "new DNA" isn't a prerequisite for evolution but rather a change or modification of already exist DNA

yes humans have a higher number of chromosomes than micro organisms, meaning that humans have acquired new genes. yes, in this case budaatum has already explained this mechanism. let me find that post for you for the very last time.

Maximus69:


Well you've tried Sir,
True Christians will keep mute because we know that the one asking is not interested in what we have to say.

Atheism is not about God but logical reasoning to tackle MIND CONTROLLING!

The sky is blue simply because 70% of the earth is water so the atmosphere reflects the color of the sea, which is BLUE!

not true @bolded

Sir, i hope you're not also an atheist?
Because that's coming from their LATTEST discoveries, as we're trailing all that they may claim to know!
So don't depend on what their textbooks of about 2 years ago teaches, try getting their current researches to update your info!

kkins25:
not true @bolded

Maximus69:

The sky is blue simply because 70% of the earth is water so the atmosphere reflects the color of the sea, which is BLUE!

The sky's colour has nothing to do with the sea, even when you are in a desert the colour of the sky is still blue. The colour is due to atmospheric scattering of light, the same phenomenon that enables the rainbow to show.

LordReed:


The sky's colour has nothing to do with the sea, even when you are in a desert the colour of the sky is still blue. The colour is due to atmospheric scattering of light, the same phenomenon that enables the rainbow to show.

18th century atheists!

Do you think this is one of your fruitless arguments?

Well that's the LATEST discoveries from world's class scientists so go and update your info!