Originally posted by DeepThought 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?
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.
As 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.
Thanks 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.
Originally posted by RJHinds 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
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.
Originally posted by DeepThought 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.
When did science become about what is possible instead of about what is?
Originally posted by RJHinds When did science become about what is possible instead of about what is?
The Instructor
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.
Originally posted by sonhouse 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.
Well, 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)
Six thousand years ago evilution was impossible, today it is still impossible.
Originally posted by DeepThought Well if you can show something is not possible it can be ruled out. The point I was making was that hybrids are not always infertile.
It has not been shown that God is not possible. However, evilutionist try to rule Him out anyway.
Originally posted by stellspalfie 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?
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.
Originally posted by RJHinds 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
they never left australia???? how did they get to the ark? did noah swing by and pick them up?
Originally posted by stellspalfie they never left australia???? how did they get to the ark? did noah swing by and pick them up?
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.
Originally posted by RJHinds 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
right so they were never there to start......
so why did they head to australia? and what stopped sections of them settling in other areas on the way to australia?
Dropping Out Missing Links
07 Aug '13 22:47
YouTube
Back to Top