Originally posted by stellspalfie you dont have cancer. you then suffer a genetic mutation because you moved to chernobyl and you develop cancer. the cancer is a mutation of your dna making it create new strands that it didnt previous to exposure to radiation. voila new information.
That is not a correct explanation of what happens genetically. For example (I'm not saying this is factual just an example):
Person A has the genetic propensity for cancer which is suppressed by protein B. Protein B production is regulated by a transcription code within the DNA governed by certain set of genes C.
Person A moves to Chernobyl and the radiation affects genes C and reduce the ability to produce protein B.
I like the discussion here of "adapting" which evolutionist say is some form of evolution. Well it's not but anyway if anything the abilty for life forms to be able to adapt to their surroundings within reason is actually proof of the wisdom of the designer, God, to make sure under most circumstances all species can and probably will survive.
No doubt in the Garden of Eden which was to eventually cover the entire world all life would have been living in a very calm and non threatening eviroment and what sedate changings would happen would have been easily adapted to by all life forms. What a great and intellegent designer God is.
Originally posted by galveston75 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OpCelTC-Xw&feature=related
I like the discussion here of "adapting" which evolutionist say is some form of evolution. Well it's not but anyway if anything the abilty for life forms to be able to adapt to their surroundings within reason is actually proof of the wisdom of the designer, God, to make sure under most circu ...[text shortened]... have been easily adapted to by all life forms. What a great and intellegent designer God is.
Even by your standards that post was something else. You're on a par with RJHinds level of stupidity, and this coming from a man who once claimed to have 'studied evolution all my life'. Frightening.
Originally posted by Proper Knob Even by your standards that post was something else. You're on a par with RJHinds level of stupidity, and this coming from a man who once claimed to have 'studied evolution all my life'. Frightening.
Not an unexpecting comment from you and one I'd expect.....Nothing new there!!!
Awesome explination and one anyone with COMMON SENSE would understand.
Sorry but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with regard to the topic of evolution, none whatsoever. Zip, zilch, nothing. I'm sorry if your ego can't handle that being pointed out to you.
Originally posted by Proper Knob Sorry but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with regard to the topic of evolution, none whatsoever. Zip, zilch, nothing. I'm sorry if your ego can't handle that being pointed out to you.
So answer me this then Mr. evolution expert: What started the very first DNA information needed to start a living organism? As you so beautifully say I know nothing so make it simple for ole dummy me to understand. OK?
Oh yeah I'll set the rules though. No words or phrases like maybe, we think, it could have, we suppose, under the right circumstances or the like can be used. Okee dokee?
So answer me this then Mr. evolution expert: What started the very first DNA information needed to start a living organism? As you so beautifully say I know nothing so make it simple for ole dummy me to understand. OK?
Oh yeah I'll set the rules though. ...[text shortened]... , it could have, we suppose, under the right circumstances or the like can be used. Okee dokee?
And you know nothing of God...
Neither do you.
What started the very first DNA information needed to start a living organism?
So answer me this then Mr. evolution expert: What started the very first DNA information needed to start a living organism? As you so beautifully say I know nothing so make it simple for ole dummy me to understand. OK?
Oh yeah I'll set the rules though. ...[text shortened]... , it could have, we suppose, under the right circumstances or the like can be used. Okee dokee?
the answer my friend is blowin in the soup, the answer is blowin in the soup
My question to them is if this could happen on some hot, sulferic, acidic, ugly as a butt planet that they say it all started and which they say the earth was like then, why not now when we live on this completely hospitable planet that would favor life so much to start as they think it did then, why do we not ever see this going on today? Not the life we are used to but some new form of life that should be able to start here on this great planet?
They do discover new and never seen before life forms all the time. But they are complete and happy surviving little guys that have always been here and not in some infancy form that "just evolved" or that is just starting to evolve. Where is it so all can see?
My question to them is if this could happen on some hot, sulferic, acidic, ugly as a butt planet that they say it all started and which they say the earth was like then, why not now when we live on this ...[text shortened]... fancy form that "just evolved" or that is just starting to evolve. Where is it so all can see?
two words which they do not like to admit, unobserved phenomena!
Originally posted by divegeester Calm down at bit please; I like a lot of your posts but you are often so aggressively condensing that I switch off.
I guess I just saw you announce as 'fact' something that was so obviously nonsense - and I didn't really expect it from you - and I lost it. If RJ says something like that, I just ignore it, because he knows hes talking nonsense and doesn't care. But you seem to actually think your making sense.
A mutation is not "the creation of new information"; not by "definition" or otherwise. In fact a mutation is just a manifestation of a sample of some genetic information and in no way defines the source of the information or whether it is a result of less, more or indeed suppressed information. So on what basis do you make this claim that "a mutation is by definition a creation of new information"? A mutation is by definition a change in the DNA. It doesn't matter what that change is, or how it comes about, the result is a new strand of DNA. DNA encodes information. The new DNA is new information.
To make it easy: Take any sentence. Change it in any way you like. Now explain to me why the new sentence is not a new sentence or at best, why that new sentence is not new information.
Hear why DNA Refutes Evolution
07 Mar '12 19:28
YouTube&feature=related
Back to Top