Originally posted by RJHinds
There would be no bacteria at all if God had not created it. There would be no possibility for bacteria to reproduce or to mutate if God had not created a process for the bacteria to reproduce. But God did create a bacteria and one with the ability to reproduce after its own kind. There is where the boundary lies in any mutation away from that backeria ga ...[text shortened]... the life of the bacteria today. He already did that at creation a little over 6,000 years ago.
But God did create a bacteria and one with the ability to reproduce after its own kind. There is where the boundary lies in any mutation away from that backeria gaining new genetic information to change to another kind.
God is not supernaturally intervening in the life of the bacteria today. He already did that at creation a little over 6,000 years ago.
so exactly WHERE and exactly WHAT is this natural barrier that God set up to prevent bacteria gaining new genetic information to change to another kind? -I mean, just tell us all what does this barrier actually consist of?
And why has there never been any evidence observed for this barrier?
And why is there evidence found for mutations that add new genetic information?
The fact that you will not and cannot answer all these questions ( esp the first one ) means your strange religious explanation simply doesn't work.
You explanation doesn't make any sense.
Also, the evidence and proofs that I have already provided that mutations can and sometimes do add new information stands unchallenged by you so clearly you have already been proven totally wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by humyIf you are so sure of your position then you should easily be able to show me the scientific evidence that one kind of bacteria changed into another kind by mutations adding new information. Go ahead and show me.
[quote] But God did create a bacteria and one with the ability to reproduce after its own kind. There is where the boundary lies in any mutation away from that backeria gaining new genetic information to change to another kind.
God is not supernaturally intervening in the life of the bacteria today. He already did that at creation a little over 6,000 years ago information stands unchallenged by you so clearly you have already been proven totally wrong.
P.S. I am referring to Bacillus, Coccus, Mycoplasma, Rickettsia, and Spirillum.
Originally posted by RJHindsIt sounds like you need to get educated on bacterial genes.
If you are so sure of your position then you should easily be able to show me the scientific evidence that one kind of bacteria changed into another kind by mutations adding new information. Go ahead and show me.
They can swap genes like we can swap shirts. There does not have to be mutations, they can swap genes sideways and they indeed can increase their store of information that way.
Originally posted by sonhouseOkay, why don't you have a go at it. Show me scientific proof that one of the following kinds of bacteria has changed into one of the other kinds.
It sounds like you need to get educated on bacterial genes.
They can swap genes like we can swap shirts. There does not have to be mutations, they can swap genes sideways and they indeed can increase their store of information that way.
Bacillus, Coccus, Mycoplasma, Rickettsia, and Spirillum.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsDid I say they could jump into being another species? I said they can swap genes like we swap shirts.
Okay, why don't you have a go at it. Show me scientific proof that one of the following kinds of bacteria has changed into one of the other kinds.
Bacillus, Coccus, Mycoplasma, Rickettsia, and Spirillum.
http://www.genethik.de/gene_swapping.htm
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsYou haven’t answered any of my questions because you have none.
If you are so sure of your position then you should easily be able to show me the scientific evidence that one kind of bacteria changed into another kind by mutations adding new information. Go ahead and show me.
P.S. I am referring to Bacillus, Coccus, Mycoplasma, Rickettsia, and Spirillum.
Reminder of my questions:
so exactly WHERE and exactly WHAT is this natural barrier that God set up to prevent bacteria gaining new genetic information to change to another kind? -I mean, just tell us all what does this barrier actually consist of?
And why has there never been any evidence observed for this barrier?
And why is there evidence found for mutations that add new genetic information?
why should I answer you questions when you refuse to answer mine? -you are obviously just trying to destruct us from the fact that you have no answers and that proves that you are wrong and you know it. I will answer all your questions IF and when you answer mine.
Your silence on my questions just confirms you have lost the argument here which means you are wrong and mutations clearly can and sometimes do add new information. If you deny this, just answer my questions above.
Originally posted by humyI am not an expert on that. I believe it is the self-replicating information code of the bacteria. And I believe that prevents the bacteria from changing to another kind. I am not sure if there is enough knowledge known one way or another to know for sure. Just as you have no proof that one kind of bacteria has changed into another, I do not have proof that it is not possible that new information can not be produced that can lead to such a change. But as yet, the Holy Bible has not been proven wrong. And it says it can not happen, the way I read it.
You haven’t answered any of my questions because you have none.
Reminder of my questions:
[quote] so exactly WHERE and exactly WHAT is this natural barrier that God set up to prevent bacteria gaining new genetic information to change to another kind? -I mean, just tell us all what does this barrier actually consist of?
And why has there never been any ...[text shortened]... arly can and sometimes do add new information. If you deny this, just answer my questions above.
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not an expert on that. I believe it is the self-replicating information code of the bacteria. And I believe that prevents the bacteria from changing to another kind. I am not sure if there is enough knowledge known one way or another to know for sure. Just as you have no proof that one kind of bacteria has changed into another, I do not have proof t ...[text shortened]... et, the Holy Bible has not been proven wrong. And it says it can not happen, the way I read it.
I am not an expert on that.
Have you ever considered the possibility that those that are, i.e. all those very many rational scientists that know a lot more about it than you do and have made the observations and done the actual research, are vastly more likely to know the truth about genetics, evolution, bacteria etc than you?
I believe it is the self-replicating information code of the bacteria.
that would be called the “genome” of the bacteria.
And I believe that prevents the bacteria from changing to another kind.
that doesn't make any sense whatsoever; exactly HOW does the mere presence of the genome in bacteria prevent it evolving into “another kind”?
I am not sure if there is enough knowledge known one way or another to know for sure
“sure” of what? -you have not explained how the mere presence of the genome in bacteria prevent it evolving into another kind so exactly which explanation are you referencing here when you say you are not “sure” if that explanation is the correct explanation?
I do not have proof that it is not possible that new information can not be produced that can lead to such a change.
-and I have repeatedly given proof that it IS possible that new information can be created by mutations and you STILL haven't given any credible argument against any of those proves.
If you deny this then a good place to start would be to first explain to us exactly WHAT is this natural barrier that God set up to prevent mutations giving new genetic information to change bacteria to another kind and what does this barrier consist of and exactly WHERE is it? -I mean, is this barrier inside the cell? If so, exactly WHERE? If it is in the DNA then exactly WHERE in the DNA is it and how does that work?
But as yet, the Holy Bible has not been proven wrong. And it says it can not happen, the way I read it.
then if your way of reading the Bible is the correct way then the Bible HAS been proven wrong! We have the proof that mutations logically should be able to add new information and we also have the empirical evidence that it sometimes DOES do so and you have not explained what the barrier is to prevent this other than “god is the barrier” which presupposes that the way you interpret the Bible is the correct one.
Originally posted by humyI admit that there may be many rational scientists, who have made the observations and done the actual research, that are more likely to know the truth about genetics, evolution, bacteria etc than I do. However, none of them are likely to know more than the Designer and Creator.I am not an expert on that.
Have you ever considered the possibility that those that are, i.e. all those very many rational scientists that know a lot more about it than you do and have made the observations and done the actual research, are vastly more likely to know the truth about genetics, evolution, bacteria etc than you?
[quote] I beli ...[text shortened]... god is the barrier” which presupposes that the way you interpret the Bible is the correct one.
The Holy Bible says God is the the Creator and made all living things with the ability to reproduce after ther own kind. That is, it can not reproduce after another kind, thus limiting each kind to its own. This obviously means that the self-replicating information code that God put into the bacteria would prevent it from gaining sufficent different information to change it to another kind. A bacteria is always going to be a bacteria. I take it one step further in thinking God also made different kinds of bacteria and that fact would limit each kind of bacteria to its own kind. You refer to this system as the genome.
Then, I believe this "genome" is the information that tells the bacteria how to reproduce its own kind. Therefore, that information would limit the bacteria from producing anything other than a bacteria.
I do not see how the fact that a error in the reproduction process (a mutation) that deforms the bacteria in some way that it looses a piece of information would result in it changing to another kind of bacteria. And likewise, if the mutated bacteria were to somehow regain that information by reverse-mutation it would still be a bacteria of the same kind. This is the only type of mutation in the scientific literature that is spoken of that a gain of information is spoken of. And of course, as the name implies it would just be a reverse of the mutation error that had occurred before. This would not lead to a change in kind.
So I see scientific literature in which only a reverse-mutation gains back the old information it has lost. There is no scientific literature that says any other information adding mutation has ever taken place.
So I ask you to show me such scientific literature and also evidence that a Coccus bacteria has changed into a Bacillus Bacteria or another kind of bacteria, that I have mentioned before, by the gain or even the loss of genetic information.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds
I admit that there may be many rational scientists, who have made the observations and done the actual research, that are more likely to know the truth about genetics, evolution, bacteria etc than I do. However, none of them are likely to know more than the Designer and Creator.
The Holy Bible says God is the the Creator and made all living things with t f bacteria, that I have mentioned before, by the gain or even the loss of genetic information.
this "genome" is the information that tells the bacteria how to reproduce its own kind.
the genome is simply all the genes and genetic material the cell contains ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome )
So what barrier is there in the genome to prevent a bacteria evolving into a different kind?
THEREFORE, that information would limit the bacteria from producing anything other than a bacteria. ( my emphasis)
“ THEREFORE”? You do understand what “ THEREFORE” actually means -right?
How does “this "genome" is the information that tells the bacteria how to reproduce its own kind.”
logically imply that “that information would limit the bacteria from producing anything other than a bacteria.”?
Even if that conclusion is correct, it doesn't logically follow from your premise so you are not making sense here.
I do not see how the fact that a error in the reproduction process (a mutation) that deforms the bacteria in some way that it looses a piece of information would result in it changing to another kind of bacteria. And likewise, if the mutated bacteria were to somehow regain that information by reverse-mutation it would still be a bacteria of the same kind.
-which is all totally irrelevant. What about those mutations that DO add new information that was never there before?
This is the only type of mutation in the scientific literature that is spoken of that a gain of information is spoken of.
…
…
There is no scientific literature that says any other information adding mutation has ever taken place.
...
FALSE! And FALSE!
I have shown you the links that show evidence of chromosome duplication and point mutation and not even a half-wit will fail to see that you can have both together i.e. first a chromosome duplication and then one of the copies having point mutation. It is OBVIOUS that this combination of mutations must sometimes occur and that that combination means new information no matter HOW you look at it!
Do you deny this? What barrier is preventing this? Can you show us EVIDENCE of this barrier?
-and I have repeatedly given proof that it IS possible that new information can be created by mutations and you STILL haven't given any credible argument against any of those proves.
Originally posted by humyThis is your earlier response:this "genome" is the information that tells the bacteria how to reproduce its own kind.
the genome is simply all the genes and genetic material the cell contains ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome )
So what barrier is there in the genome to prevent a bacteria evolving into a different kind?
[quote] THEREFORE, that information would lim ...[text shortened]... y mutations and you STILL haven't given any credible argument against any of those proves.
Me - I believe it is the self-replicating information code of the bacteria.
You - that would be called the “genome” of the bacteria.
So when I used your word "genome" as you stated was the same as the self-replicating information code of the bacteria, and state this "genome" is the information that tells the bacteria how to reproduce its own kind. Then you now change the definiton of genome to "the genome is simply all the genes and genetic material the cell contains".
SO WHICH IS IT?
I am referring to the self-replicating information code of the bacteria that tells the bacteria how to reproduce its own kind.
If you do not know what that is called then that is okay. We do not have to have a single name for it.
All your other post is pure lies. YOU ARE A LIAR!
But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
(Revelation 21:8)
Originally posted by RJHindsSo says the man who murdered his own brain, self cauterized the thinking part so he doesn't have to deal with actually coming up with refutations to his pathetic dogma.
This is your earlier response:
Me - I believe it is the self-replicating information code of the bacteria.
You - that would be called the “genome” of the bacteria.
So when I used your word "genome" as you stated was the same as the self-replicating information code of the bacteria, and state this "genome" is the information that tells the bacteria ...[text shortened]... lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
(Revelation 21:8)
5 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
This is your earlier response:
Me - I believe it is the self-replicating information code of the bacteria.
You - that would be called the “genome” of the bacteria.
So when I used your word "genome" as you stated was the same as the self-replicating information code of the bacteria, and state this "genome" is the information that tells the bacteria lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
(Revelation 21:8)
So when I used your word "genome" as you stated was the same as the self-replicating information code of the bacteria, and state this "genome" is the information that tells the bacteria how to reproduce its own kind. Then you now change the definiton of genome to "the genome is simply all the genes and genetic material the cell contains".
SO WHICH IS IT?
BOTH!
The self-replicating information code of the bacteria ( whether for its “own kind” or not -that part is, obviously, irrelevant ) IS simply all the genes and genetic material the cell contains.
What else could it be? And why would you think the two are mutually exclusive?
There is no change to the definition here as you claim but rather multiple ways of defining the same thing.
Now I have answered your question, have you just given up and decided just to resort to infantile insults or are you now going to try and answer my questions?
1 edit
Originally posted by humyThen you are being dishonest in using another way of defining the "same thing" to try to refute my answer. It is not my falult you are a liar. I am just telling it like it is. If you consider it an insult, I am glad because it show you may have some conscience about right and wrong.
[quote] So when I used your word "genome" as you stated was the same as the self-replicating information code of the bacteria, and state this "genome" is the information that tells the bacteria how to reproduce its own kind. Then you now change the definiton of genome to "the genome is simply all the genes and genetic material the cell contains".
SO WHICH I ...[text shortened]... d just to resort to infantile insults or are you now going to try and answer my questions?