₦airaland Forum

Bigbayour:
We got married in 2014, and since then things have not been easy. All what my wife dont do while we were courting are now her usuals.

How do I explain a situation my wife nag of everything? Distespect, shout, talk to me anyhow. How do I explain my wife seen washing my cloth (with a washing machine o) as a favour? We do not have intimate talk again. The only time my wife talk to.me heart to heart is when she want to give me the list of bills. And once that is done...she carry her face again.

The worse part of my travail is that she deprive me of sex. Without exaggeration we sometimes go on 3 months sex break...and anytime she allowed me, it would be like by force and its just once.

I am financially ok, living in my own house in lagos,bought a car for her. I am a Chartered Accountant, currently head of Finance/accounts in my company, and I dont think my physique is not presentable to be a husband.

We have 2 kids and I.love her so much.



Mature advice,please

I said I'd post on the one topic this evening. My initial impulse was to have a good laugh at Freecocoa' matter - but that can wait. Let her humble herself a bit more first. Plus your issue is eminently easier to fix. First i need you to answer the following questions;

1. Does the situation persist? Are you still after advice?
2. Are you legally married, having fulfilled all traditional rites?
3. Do you perform your basic spousal duties of nurturing, providing and protecting your family?

4. Have you ever traumatised your wife by cheating on her, subjecting her to violence or, otherwise causing her harm?
5. Is your wife suffering in any other way, health issues, bereavement, post partum depression etc. - and fairly recent, not long past?
6. Do you have cause to feel your wife may be cheating or have cheated - did she show any such tendency during courtship?

If you answer yes to the first et of 3 questions and no to the second, I'll be happy to drop my 2 shekels - otherwise I'm off to Freecocoa' thread - for some merriment


TV

Regards
TV

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

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

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

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 .}

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

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:
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

LordReed:
I don't know how many times you'll be told that this not a magical change of a frog to a lizard or lizard to bird. You will persist in thinking this is magic because you've conditioned your mind to think in those terms.

I wasn't particularly interested in changing your mind only in showing you that you refuse to accurately represent what the theory says, mixing instead with your notions of magic and producing this corrupted information as reason why you will not budge.

All I asked was for you to explain the process whereby new genetic information is acquired which leads to changes in morphology. The emphasis being on new and coherent.

Your insistent on glibly putting it down to "random mutation", which is in effect to say "typos did it", is quite simply clutching Then following this with an attempt to ram it home with the nonsensical point which I quoted towards the end of my previous post clearly demonstrates you are the one resorting to sleight of hand magic tricks.

As I said, I'm a biblical inerrantist - I believe it all from the first character to the last. That in no way prevents you from clearly and honestly articulating your position - if you indeed have one of any merit.

Instead you've diverted down secondary paths, ascribed all sorts of nonsense to me and duly exposed your own limited understanding of what you in truth believe really as a matter of faith. Be it immediate, or over millions, billions or trillions of years, there has to be a natural process.

Any ideas


TV

LordReed:
You've been shown over and over again but you say you've not seen anything. There is no need, I am not masochistic.

I quite enjoy joshing with you. Although as a biblical inerrantist, I am unlikely to budge even a smidgen towards your position, as I suppose, may also be the case from your POV. That however does not prevent clearly articulated points being made - and honestly.

Honestly I say, as I've always considered you above board, and unlike some, not hell bent on demonstrating how well their intellect matches up to divinity. But now I'm not so sure.

Are you really going to present a case which claims combinational changes in the DNA bases can lead to wholesale coding for new morphology. Simply ignoring the more granular process coding for the assembly of functional proteins from amino acids?

Skipping any insight into the regulatory framework around gene activity and expression or, the tightly controlled process of transcription and translation - which process also possesses inbuilt functionality to prevent and/or rectify copying errors.

Dude, I have no problem being thoroughly sledged, or described as ignorant - even by unwanted suitors - but that kind of behaviour is unbecoming.

LordReed:
Very simply, the number of molecules that make up DNA are finite, their combinations will also be finite. The random process works within the constraints of physical laws, they will produce coherence because any time there is a new combination there is a non-zero chance that coherence will emerge. The same way every time you flip a coin there is a non-zero chance that it will be heads.

A true religionist

Thanks anyway. Not even a pinch of a tad of a smidgen


TV

LordReed:
Very simply, the number of molecules that make up DNA are finite, their combinations will also be finite.

The random process works within the constraints of physical laws, they will produce coherence because any time there is a new combination there is a non-zero chance that coherence will emerge. The same way every time you flip a coin there is a non-zero chance that it will be heads.



At this point I will say you have decided you will be willngfully ignorant. No need to belabour the point with you any further.

As in, I can't answer the question and anything I am able to posit cannot be evidenced, demonstrated or otherwise observed, therefore I am throwing in the towel. I knew you'd look for the out. Enjoy the sport jawe, Fed vs. Nadal, what's not too like?


Cheers
TV


^{...and yes, the earth is flat and unmoving. If you can show me any evidence of the earth moving - on an axis, or around the sun. I'd love to see it...}

kkins25:
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.

Please leave my beautifully created skull out of this . Not sure what your point is here, you appear to be warring with your own belief in macro-evolution. The kind of morphological changes evolution claims require an increase in novel and coherent information.

To acquire new morphology, new information needs to be acquired. How does that happen? For a fish to evolve into an amphibian, or something that is not an ape into a number of different types of ape. How can ?

kkins25:
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.

So it's deleted or deleterious then And, non of the above demonstrates the capacity to give rise to wholesale morphological changes. Oga, you are struggling

kkins25:
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'.

Please, I love comic too. X-men na die, Spidey is baaaad-ass, but I am able to distinguish what reality is, what nature is able. Don't go all Marvel on me now. Abi TOE na comic fantasy

kkins25:
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.

Please sir, are human beings with six digits no longer humans? Or, on their way to becoming an altogether different creature . Bro' no wound me jor

kkins25:
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

How does DNA that codes for a limb evolve to code for a wing What will happen is impairment, loss of function, likely death and removal form the gene pool. Moreso, as mutation, changes and the like are akin to typos, which the genome is intelligent enough to try and correct.

kkins25:
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.

Prof please, just answer the question or otherwise demonstrate/evidence how this modification of existing DNA can over time lead to wholesale morphological changes.

Ah, ah Broda Prof!


TV

LordReed:
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.

If indeed there is "a limited number of ways". But that is not the case, unless of course you are able to show otherwise.

And why should\how can a supposedly random & blind process ever achieve coherence?

LordReed:
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?

There is always a loss of information. Mutation not being always degenerative is disputable. I won't do that at this point, suffice to say, mutation does not give rise to novel coherent information which would code for new morphology.

LordReed:
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?

First, and, as I have stated before, taxonomy is not at the heart of this discussion. Secondly, I'm no expert, but please peruse Bbaraminology to read what those who have pursued this line of inquiry further have to say.

Mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and the like only act on pre-existing information. They do not write wholesale new coherent detail that leads to wholesale changes in morphology.

And, any postulation to that effect has never been observed, has not been evidenced and cannot be shown experimentally. TOE is speculation at best.


TV

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

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Chromosomes_mutations-en.svg/388px-Chromosomes_mutations-en.svg.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

LordReed:
The gopher wood the bible refers to is unknown so we can't even determine the properties of the wood. As for the climate, the bible claims it had never rained instead mist was how the world got precipitation. That doesn't eliminate the weathering such exposed wood must undergo even in a treated state. If you want wood to last in such exposed conditions you don't treat it once and then it will be fine forever or else the ark would have been found, if indeed it was real.

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.

LordReed:
Right sized indeed. How many kinds of animals entered the ark?

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

LordReed:
So Noah had other people help him build the boat but they decided that they didn't want to take a ride in it? Did they think they did a crappy job? LoL.

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


TV

Please describe or otherwise evidence the natural process whereby organisms acquire "new" genetic information that enables them to become/turn into different life-forms. Not different expressions of pre-existing traits.

And please, not mutations which simply do not generate the capacity/information required for such wholesale changes, and has never been shown to do so. And, are if anything deleterious, not additive. New coherent information cannot be acquired in a random and unguided way.

If it's not semantics, it's scientese

LordReed:
There is no need for a "creative force", it is chemical molecules undergoing natural processes.

Please describe how this natural process works - what is the mechanism whereby it creates new coherent genetic content that leads to totally new morphological expressions

LordReed:
So none, got it.



What denial? Dawkins said it so much like software, does that translate to it being code?

Maybe you need a refresher on what it is:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (/diˈɒksɪraɪboʊnjuːkliːɪk, -kleɪ-/ (About this soundlisten);[1] DNA) is a molecule composed of two chains that coil around each other to form a double helix carrying genetic instructions for the development, functioning, growth and reproduction of all known organisms and many viruses. DNA and ribonucleic acid (RNA) are nucleic acids; alongside proteins, lipids and complex carbohydrates (polysaccharides), nucleic acids are one of the four major types of macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life.

The two DNA strands are also known as polynucleotides as they are composed of simpler monomeric units called nucleotides.[2][3] Each nucleotide is composed of one of four nitrogen-containing nucleobases (cytosine [C], guanine [G], adenine [A] or thymine [T]), a sugar called deoxyribose, and a phosphate group. The nucleotides are joined to one another in a chain by covalent bonds between the sugar of one nucleotide and the phosphate of the next, resulting in an alternating sugar-phosphate backbone. The nitrogenous bases of the two separate polynucleotide strands are bound together, according to base pairing rules (A with T and C with G), with hydrogen bonds to make double-stranded DNA. The complementary nitrogenous bases are divided into two groups, pyrimidines and purines. In DNA, the pyrimidines are thymine and cytosine; the purines are adenine and guanine.

Both strands of double-stranded DNA store the same biological information. This information is replicated as and when the two strands separate. A large part of DNA (more than 98% for humans) is non-coding, meaning that these sections do not serve as patterns for protein sequences. The two strands of DNA run in opposite directions to each other and are thus antiparallel. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of nucleobases (informally, bases). It is the sequence of these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes genetic information. RNA strands are created using DNA strands as a template in a process called transcription. Under the genetic code, these RNA strands specify the sequence of amino acids within proteins in a process called translation.

Within eukaryotic cells, DNA is organized into long structures called chromosomes. Before typical cell division, these chromosomes are duplicated in the process of DNA replication, providing a complete set of chromosomes for each daughter cell. Eukaryotic organisms (animals, plants, fungi and protists) store most of their DNA inside the cell nucleus as nuclear DNA, and some in the mitochondria as mitochondrial DNA or in chloroplasts as chloroplast DNA.[4] In contrast, prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea) store their DNA only in the cytoplasm, in circular chromosomes. Within eukaryotic chromosomes, chromatin proteins, such as histones, compact and organize DNA. These compacting structures guide the interactions between DNA and other proteins, helping control which parts of the DNA are transcribed.

TV

LordReed:
Where is the scientific study that brought this conclusion?

The NL commissioned longitudinal study of procreation across and between the nations 1960 - 2018

LordReed:
DNA is not a code, it is only described as such to simplify the explanation of its operation. DNA is a sequence of proteins which by their nature are capable of being altered in structure and sequence hence leading to new expressions in the organism. Mutation is how we describe the methods by which these alterations take place. There is no need for a "creative force", it is chemical molecules undergoing natural processes.

The denial is stroooooooong!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhuxg3WRfg


TV

^{...the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand...repent ye and believe the Gospel}

LordReed:
In a boat made of wood that has been exposed to the elements for 120 years. Have they ever seen wood that has been exposed to the elements for 10years? Wood becomes brittle under those conditions, then you build a boat out of it and then load it with thousands of animals? What a farce.

Do you know what the climate was at that point in time? Do you know what types of wood existed back then or their quality ? The bible records it was made of gopher wood and covered in pitch.

LordReed:
I doubt such a person had the capacity with only 3 other helpers to build such a thing. Even the so called tower of Babel involved all of humanity and yet 4 people supposedly built a boat capable of containing a pair of all the animals in the world? My objection is not his expertise, it is the scale.

Presumably the scale has been "right-sized" somewhat given that it has been explained that it was "kinds" and not necessarily every "species" of creature. Plus it was built over an extensive period. Further, and I stand to be corrected, nowhere does it say that labour was limited to Noah and his family does it?


TV

budaatum:
That would be appropriate for those who seek not. For those who do this all things are possible.

So you sought, and the outcome was a thread titled Evolution 101? ...

LordReed:
How do we see this lost rich genome in humans?

From the base pair - Adam & Eve - were expressed all of the ethnic types. And whilst all ethnic types are able to procreate, pairs from any one ethnic type are limited in their expression.

Whilst certain traits become more pronounced and others less so, some are lost over time. Gene deletion attests to this in part and, I believe can be extrapolated backwards to about the time of the base pair

LordReed:
There is nothing called less or more evolved, evolution is not a hierarchical ladder.

Fine. No semantic quibbles. More, less, at least the evolutionary position is that it is different no?

LordReed:
As for the acquisition of new genetic material, what do you mean by that? Do you understand what mutation is?

Changes in morphology demand a change in the code. By what natural mechanism does this take place? Mutation does not possess the creative force required to write new code.

budaatum:
Non-omnipotence grasps what omnipotence is or does by continously questioning omnipotence until one has grasped what omnipotence is or does.
_Ref

This would be more apt - Ref - Non-omnipotence simply does not have the capacity to grasp omnipotence.


Cheers
TV

wirinet:
You are still talking without saying anything. Even if nothing in concise, give us a classification we can define. Give something that can be taught, disputed upon and discussed. We know what biological family and genus means, explain what in between is and how it's criteria for classification.

I have provided a brief overview of "kind" as mentioned in the bible. I don't have anything more comprehensive, although I'm sure there's more out there. It's purpose was to dispel the myth of 125'000 different kinds of animals in the ark.

wirinet:
Cheetahs are cat family (felidae), no doubt about that. They possess all the features and characteristics of cats. Now if you say that according to your "kind" classification, it is dog, explain why.

Does this discussion boil down to how one classifies a cheetah? Perhaps . Again, the point was that no system of classification is perfectly precise or devoid of anomalies.

wirinet:
Some big cats can interbreed, but the problem is their offsprings are usually sterile. They in turn cannot breed. The very definition of species iincludes the ability breed and create fertile offspring . We really need your definition of what makes a kind.

Again, somewhat missing the point. Sometimes they are not sterile. It often depends on the pairing. As mentioned, over time some of the richness of the genome at the original creation has been lost. We see this even in humans.

wirinet:
Evolution fables, and creation (or kind-ution) is fact? The only proof being a sentence "the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind" in a religious book? While, evolution fable produces evidence from generics, paleontology, geology and biology, kind-ution fact only evidence is a quote from the bible.

No branch of science has produced anything that evidences evolution - simply because that is not how we arrived at the richness, complexity and diversity of life today.

And it is still stuck on the point of how life actually began (even though "evolutionists" try and hive that off as a separated discussion). What we have is a "science academy" that is has an a priori commitment to seeing and interpreting everything through an "evolutionary" lens.

And still no response to my simple question

wirinet:
It is ridiculous that a so called omnipotent God, that was supposed to have create the whole universe and all creatures in it with just words in 6 days, would have to go through such stupid strategy of destroying the earth with flood, and saving 8 people with 2 of every animal.

How does non-omnipotence grasp or question what omnipotence is or does?


TV

EmperorHarry:
Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."
Wiki

1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex : GAY
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual activity between persons of the same sex
: a person who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex.

TV01 and openmine thanks for the replies.I think I've gotten just what I needed to know as regards to my question.I'll wait for Shepherd and those verses.

No problem.

The above is a social description - not a scientific or a legal one. No one's identity is based on how they feel "about anything", except that be a socio-cultural identity.

I am an adult male, black if you insist. That is an identity rooted in fact, in reality. Not in action, or feeling. I sometimes identify as a boxer, but that is not ontological nor teleological. Even if one eats only herbs and thus identifies as a vegetarian, it is a social or personal thing.

Nevertheless, such labels can be useful as points of reference - I identify MuttleyLaff as an die-hard homosexualist fanatic or possibly a sponsored homo-activist shill. Do I even need to mention Wiki's liberal bias?


TV

EmperorHarry:
openmine and TV01 can a "homosexual" make heaven in that such a person never had sexual activity with same sex?
We've reached an clarification that being attracted to the same sex or identifying as gay doesn't mean one is an abomination.So do gay people who don't have sexual intimacy with same sex have a place in the church? Should they be allowed to worship in peace without stigma and victimization due to ignorantly prejudiced "sanctimonious" believers?

Viewed froma Christian perspective, this question is still somewhat faulty.

There is nothing like a "homosexual". That a person experiences SSA does not make him or her a homosexual. That is a matter of identification, which I don't deny anyone, but it is not scriptural or rooted in truth.

Everyone who comes to Christ sincerely has a place. And SSA or urges may well persist after one does so. THey key is not believing and insisting that such urges are fine, normal, healthy and non-negotiable (or conversely, approved by God).

So having the SS feelings but the right attitude, should engender the same love and support any other believer is afforded, whatever it is they may be struggling with. In such instances they are brethren and without any sort of qualification.

On he other hand, if they remain obdurate in claiming the essentality of their feelings and labelling themselves as homosexual, I would suggest asking them to leave after clear counselling and the opportunity to repent.

If, and worse still they stridently insisting it is God approved and /or millitantly agitated for it's acceptance, I would see them out quick time. You may consider that stigmatisation or victimisation, but it's scriptural. Of course there are "churches" which are gay-affirming.

On a personal note, we left a church which affirmed transgenderism in a boy of 5 or 6 years old. Not only was he allowed to dress as a girl and wear make-up and jewellery, the attention seeking little blighter poor child ran riot in Sunday school .


TV

EmperorHarry:
Muttleylaff I have a question.
Does the Bible strictly condemn homosexuality or just sex between homos? Can you refer verses that don't suggest just the sexually related part of homosexuality.Verses that condemn homosexuality as a whole. This is open to all.I just need to clarify something.

From a Christian/Biblical perspective the wording of your query is inherently flawed.

The Bible does not recognise a "homosexual" as type of person. That is a category error. There is nothing like a "heterosexual" either. The bible recognises male and female created sexually dimporphous, evidence by the complimentarity of their sexual/reproductive function/ality.

Categorising people as "homosexual" is wholly a social norm. Widespread, generally accepted, hardly ever questioned, but purely social nonetheless. No scientist or scientific study ever refers to humans/people as homosexual. Likewise no legal code ever recognises a homosexual as a distinct type of person. Homosexual is always qualified by the word "act".

With the correct biblical understanding in place, your question can be more readily addressed. Do some people experience SSA? Absolutely, it does not make them ontologically or functionally different from those who don't.

Is the attraction in itself a sin? It''s certainly a disorder, but only a sin if - excuse the seeming pun - head is given to such lustful feelings. If they are rightly recognised as disordered and not entertained and stood against, it is not sin - just as for opposite sex lust or feelings . SS physical intimacy of a sexual nature is always sin and vis-a-viz my earlier reference to function, "dysfunctional".

The bible is unmistakeably clear that a Christian can be delivered from such feelings and such acts. But it is in my opinion unlikely, if you present yourself to Christ and demand He accept you and your chosen identity. A Christian indeed comes as he or she is, but then submits to The Holy Spirits leading and identifies only as God in Christ Jesus sees him or her.

There is no indication, pattern, type or example affirming SS relationshipns anywhere in the bible. Conversely the scriptures condemning it are clear-cut and unambiguous. How would such a relationship be sanctified, or deemed equal to marriage - if as MuttleyLaff himself states - it is not open to them?

If it was indeed ok, even as MuttleyLaff likes to qualify it "consensual & committed", there would be no distinct prohibition against "gayhomosex" alongside the prohibitions against sexual immorality. Why would there need to be?

As OKCOrmel has repeatedly asked, are those who testify as overcoming in Christ liars?


TV

Excerpt from here - https://www.thedailybeast.com/gay-open-marriages-need-to-come-out-of-the-closet

In a 2013 column for Slate, Hanna Rosin called non-monogamy the gay community’s “dirty little secret,” citing a study from the ’80s, which showed that up to 82 percent of gay couples had sex with other people. That number sounds about right to me, but here’s the thing: It’s not dirty and it’s hardly a secret, at least if you know where to look.

Monogamish couples are a constant presence on apps like Grindr and Scruff, which allow gay men to connect with other men to chat or hook up. Users commonly describe themselves as “dating,” “in an open relationship,” “partnered,” or “married,” while others set up an account with their partner if they’re looking to play together.

I spoke to one couple that hasn’t let marriage get in the way of their Scruff account. Eric, 34, and Martin, 33, walked down the aisle last October after dating for five years. Like many gay couples, they were initially monogamous, although with “infrequent and informal” exceptions. “Think post-bar bathhouse outings,” Eric explained. But after creating a profile together on Scruff a few years ago, the couple agreed on a set of boundaries. “We only sleep with people together, we have to both communicate with the person to some extent before we meet up, and the guy has to very clearly be attracted to both of us,” Eric said.

Like nearly everyone I spoke to, the pair had few gay friends that were in monogamous relationships, and Martin believes it’s because there are fewer rules and expectations around gay relationships. “I think we don’t have heteronormative templates that we have to subscribe to,” Martin said. “There’s just not that same kind of pressure to be monogamous when you’re gay.”

...urgh!

MuttleyLaff:
I am brazenly walking pass the questions OKcornel presents to me because I dont suffer hypocrites gladly, especially the ones like him, who take pride and delight in their hypocrisy

MuttleyLaff you can lie! Fess up, no answer. OkCornel don land knockout blow


TV