NOT! Here is a picture of a mutation which is neither harmful nor results in a loss of information. It's not even a devolutionary mutation, but it makes a he11 of a nose-picker:
Posted on 02/13/2009 8:34:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?
....
Are mutations really the “key to our evolution”? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, “God made the beasts of the earth after their kind” (Genesis 1:25)...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
“The most important question might be why an all powerful god capable only of perfection employs so many idiots as spokespersons?”
I can only sympathize and say Darwinism has to use whatever it says crawled out of the slime as its spokescritters even if idiots. Perfect? Maybe the spokescritters are perfect idiots.
NOT! Here is a picture of a mutation which is neither harmful nor results in a loss of information. It's not even a devolutionary mutation, but it makes a he11 of a nose-picker:
I shouldn’t laugh, but that is one funky thumb...
Any issues of superiority are not a matter of “feeling”, though those discomforted may find comfort in such delusion.
And as you imagine superiority derivative of some higher source of information, perhaps you might consider the possibility that God might speak to you directly and plainly over the internet. I make no such claim, but certainly, such a prospect is no less sensible than by means of a burning bush.
And certainly a God which created the heaven and earth and all his critters would not require such multitudes of self-proclaimed and bickering middlemen, each claiming a superior understanding of truth revealed in superior clarity selectively to them.
When it comes to our evolving understanding of evolution, I’ll put my money on the 99% of real scientists that credit Charles Darwin with the intellectual foundation for all of the life sciences. By “real” I mean those that actually do the research which builds new and useful understanding of our world and which hold virtually all the faculty positions at the the major reseach universities.
Many are practicing Christians of strong faith not the least disturbed at discovery possibly conflicting with metaphorical religion having its roots in the Bronze Age and codified into dogma by candle by flea-bitten monks in the Dark Ages when the Earth was flat. So much for your millenia of inquiry. Indeed, every new discovery for most increases their marvel. Faith that is secure is not threatened by science.
Examine the CV of the garden variety creation “science”/ID type that claims to be a scientist and you typically find something like a third rate physical chemist or aerospace engineer without research portfolio in the life sciences and usually without much in the way of accomplishment in their field of training. What passes for “published research” is very selective review of “facts” at third hand glued together by illogic. “ID” is a joke. Proponents of it are frightfully close to being Christian Taliban.
You have a refreshing outlook. I would be happy to discuss this further with you.
No.
“You lose the argument automatically, because GGG has invoked UPPER CASE.
UPPER CASE always wins over mixed case. “
Somebody’s ALWAYS sneaking in a new rule on me. Just like the NFL!
So the bacteria evolved into bacteria?
What about original sin? Do you believe that Christ defeated sin on the cross? If there was no Adam and Eve then where did sin come from?
Why don’t you just ask all of your questions in a single post? This approach is a waste of my time and yours.
I didn’t think you would have an answer to my question and I was obviously right.
Thus mutations are an “engine” of evolution, that can derive new and useful ‘information’.
Evolution is not synonymous with common descent, the bacteria need not evolve into a eukaryote, put on a waist coat and top hat and attend the opera in order for evolution to have occurred.
That’s the kind of deductive reasoning that qualifies for grants in ID research!
Thanks, and have a nice day.
Do you think the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical?
If so, then is original sin allegorical?
If so, is Christ's victory over sin also merely an allegory?
You are the one who made the claim that evolution and Christianity are wholly consistent belief systems. I think if that's true you should be able to answer my questions, which you clearly cannot do.
It is you who is mixing up evolution with common descent.
Every example of evolution need not provide evidence for (or “prove” to use your word) common descent to be an example of evolution.
It is sad that your faith is so weak that you find solace in silly paradoxes. It is sad that you limit the scope of your faith to the equivalent of a scorecard. I suppose that there is room for folks of your perspective in Christianity, but I really don’t think that Jesus is too happy about it.
Looks harmful to me. If for nothing else, it will harm his chances in finding a mate.
If that's the case, why did it take more than 30,000 generations for that frontloaded information to kick in?
And given that this information is already there, it seems that it would be a productive use of creation scientists' time to try and figure out where it's located. Furthermore, since they're so big on being able to predict stuff, maybe after they locate it they could look for some other new abilities the Creator frontloaded and devise experiments to see if they kick in or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.