Originally posted by DeepThoughtThere is nothing wrong with complexity in a system increasing if it is due to intelligent design. Otherwise, new variations arise through adaptation and natural selection. New species? I suppose you mean new variations.
No, it's not, the lab-cultures lacked the protein to do it, and the adaptation required three separate mutations. The information in the cells changed and they have a complete record of each generation and could tell if it was due to contamination.
What is wrong with complexity in a system increasing anyway? I thought the idea with the irreducible c ...[text shortened]... natural forces alone; you seem to be arguing that new species can't emerge on the same basis?
The Instructor
Originally posted by Proper KnobThanks for the link. I really don't think their complexity argument works for anything other than abiogenesis - and I don't think it works there either.
An interesting series of articles regarding Behe's work and views on the Lenski experiment can be found here.
http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-4-ic-and-exaptationAs an aside, quibbling over whether this mutation constitutes a “genuine gain-of-FCT” mutation is not my purpose here, since the definition is B ...[text shortened]... t’s not, but that seems to me to torture the words “new” and “gain” beyond recognition.
Originally posted by RJHindsA species is a slightly fuzzy but defined concept. What do you mean by a new variation? A new variation is either a new species or a new phenotype within a species, indicating a new gene; your posts in this thread indicate that according to you neither can occur.
There is nothing wrong with complexity in a system increasing if it is due to intelligent design. Otherwise, new variations arise through adaptation and natural selection. New species? I suppose you mean new variations.
The Instructor
Incidentally, regarding your earlier post about hybrids; it is possible for hybrids to breed, it depends on the specific genetics what they can breed with if anything.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhen did science become about what is possible instead of about what is?
A species is a slightly fuzzy but defined concept. What do you mean by a new variation? A new variation is either a new species or a new phenotype within a species, indicating a new gene; your posts in this thread indicate that according to you neither can occur.
Incidentally, regarding your earlier post about hybrids; it is possible for hybrids to breed, it depends on the specific genetics what they can breed with if anything.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsWell, 125 years ago, the 'possible' was flying. 50 years ago the "possible' was computers. 40 years ago, 'possible' was the internet. Science has ALWAYS been about what is possible. Not what is impossible. Like your religion.
When did science become about what is possible instead of about what is?
The Instructor
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, the creation of living things by God, a super intelligent being, has always been a possibility. Now we have proof that living cells are programmed by an intelligent being for life with the discovery of the DNA information code. This formally invisible information about creation has always been logically known by the visible creations in nature. So only the fool says in heart, "There is no God." (Psalm 14:1)
Well, 125 years ago, the 'possible' was flying. 50 years ago the "possible' was computers. 40 years ago, 'possible' was the internet. Science has ALWAYS been about what is possible. Not what is impossible. Like your religion.
Six thousand years ago evilution was impossible, today it is still impossible.
The Instructor
Originally posted by stellspalfieWhen kangaroos left the ark they would have migrated in a southeastern direction until they finally survived in an isolated area such as Australia. There is no evidence that I am aware of that they ever left Australia.
noah sent them a message saying 'flood in middle east, hurry, things are going to get pretty damp'.
are you saying that kangaroos were never on the boat? did they evolve after the flood?
http://www.creationdefense.org/34.htm
The Instructor
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by RJHindsthey never left australia???? how did they get to the ark? did noah swing by and pick them up?
When kangaroos left the ark they would have migrated in a southeastern direction until they finally survived in an isolated area such as Australia. There is no evidence that I am aware of that they ever left Australia.
http://www.creationdefense.org/34.htm
The Instructor
Originally posted by stellspalfieThere is no evidence that Kangaroos were ever in Australia before the worldwide flood. Here check this video of an interview with an Australian geologist.
they never left australia???? how did they get to the ark? did noah swing by and pick them up?
Fossilized Kangaroos, Log Jams and Thorns
The Instructor
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsright so they were never there to start......
There is no evidence that Kangaroos were ever in Australia before the worldwide flood. Here check this video of an interview with an Australian geologist.
Fossilized Kangaroos, Log Jams and Thorns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiWyP-fFQYM
The Instructor
so why did they head to australia? and what stopped sections of them settling in other areas on the way to australia?