Can anyone explain how the moth got it's owl eyes?

[Estrid]

Surely you can see that what @Estrid posted and the verse you responded with do not say the same thing, right?

Also, the implication or your verse is demonstrably false. Literally ANYONE can be against people who claim they have "god" on their side.

It's ok, whatever it was, the point is always just to contradict, and increase the post count.

 

[AV1611VET]

Surely you can see that what @Estrid posted and the verse you responded with do not say the same thing, right?

Right.

But it's close enough.

Also, the implication or your verse is demonstrably false. Literally ANYONE can be against people who claim they have "god" on their side.

The verse is rhetorical, yet factual.

It was written by someone who had been [or soon will be] arrested, beaten, whipped, and even killed and brought back to life.

 

[BCP1928]

Right.

But it's close enough.



The verse is rhetorical, yet factual.

It was written by someone who had been [or soon will be] arrested, beaten, whipped, and even killed and brought back to life.

Paul was beaten, killed and brought back to life?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's ok, whatever it was, the point is always just to contradict, and increase the post count.

That's rich for someone going on 10,000 posts, with about one tenth of those posts being replied to.

I notice not many respond to you.

I'm the exception.

Chuck Swindoll made this excellent point about this verse:

1 Corinthians 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

He said there are two types of people that critique a runner.

One type is like a coach; critiquing the runner in hopes of making him better.

The other is like a critic; sitting on the sidelines and taking potshots at the runner just to make fun of him.

I think I know which one you are.

 

[AV1611VET]

Paul was beaten, killed and brought back to life?

Yes.

At Lystra (Acts 14).

Acts 14:19 And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.
20 Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe.

Their suppositions were correct.

2 Corinthians 12:1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, ( whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; ) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I knew such a man, ( whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; )
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Do you understand that, assuming you're an average sort of bloke, that you have about 30 mutations that your parents didn't have. Did any of them make you ugly?

No to the ugly, but yes to the fact I am a human just like my parents and no mutation will render a new body part, perhaps just a mutant-like grotesque feature like an extra finger from a dna copying error

 

[BCP1928]

No to the ugly, but yes to the fact I am a human just like my parents

Just what evolution predicts.

and no mutation will render a new body part, perhaps just a mutant-like grotesque feature like an extra finger from a dna copying error

No, mutations of that kind are a barrier to evolution, not a part of it. I hate to join the chorus, but you apparently don't understand the role that genetic mutations play in evolution. I don't really care if you accept the theory of evolution or not, but you should find out what it actually says before you argue against it.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Just what evolution predicts.

No, mutations of that kind are a barrier to evolution, not a part of it. I hate to join the chorus, but you apparently don't understand the role that genetic mutations play in evolution. I don't really care if you accept the theory of evolution or not, but you should find out what it actually says before you argue against it.

Darwinists rely on the engine of evolution, random mutations. You pretending not to know this? No copying error has ever generated a new novel body part

 

[BCP1928]

Darwinists rely on the engine of evolution, random mutations. You pretending not to know this? No copying error has ever generated a new novel body part

OK, I agree There is no evidence that a copying error has ever produced a new novel body part. Now all you have to do is find a "Darwinist" who claims that it can and you will be able to refute him. Let us know how it turns out,

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

OK, I agree There is no evidence that a copying error has ever produced a new novel body part. Now all you have to do is find a "Darwinist" who claims that it can and you will be able to refute him. Let us know how it turns out,

Here you go , random mutations are your all important engine, w out them you have ZILCH, even NS is impotent.

Abstract​

According to neo-Darwinian theory, random mutation produces genetic differences among organisms whereas natural selection tends to increase the frequency of advantageous alleles.

 

[BCP1928]

Here you go , random mutations are your all important engine, w out them you have ZILCH, even NS is impotent.

Abstract​

According to neo-Darwinian theory, random mutation produces genetic differences among organisms whereas natural selection tends to increase the frequency of advantageous alleles.

Another way of putting it is that natural selection decreases the information content of the gene pool while random mutation replenishes it.

But the real clue for you lies in the name chosen by Darwin for the theory itself: The Theory of Evolution by Random Variation and Natural Selection. Note that it says random variation, not random mutation.

Note also that it is considered rude to post a quote without a source.

 

[Ophiolite]

Another way of putting it is that natural selection decreases the information content of the gene pool while random mutation replenishes it.

But the real clue for you lies in the name chosen by Darwin for the theory itself: The Theory of Evolution by Random Variation and Natural Selection. Note that it says random variation, not random mutation.

Note also that it is considered rude to post a quote without a source.

It is interesting to read the full abstract of the paper (The directed mutation controversy and neo-Darwinism ) from which @Thurston-howell-III quoted the opening sentence. Here it is:

According to neo-Darwinian theory, random mutation produces genetic differences among organisms whereas natural selection tends to increase the frequency of advantageous alleles. However, several recent papers claim that certain mutations in bacteria and yeast occur at much higher rates specifically when the mutant phenotypes are advantageous. Various molecular models have been proposed that might explain these directed mutations, but the models have not been confirmed. Critics contend that studies purporting to demonstrate directed mutation lack certain controls and fail to account adequately for population dynamics. Further experiments that address these criticisms do not support the existence of directed mutations.
Lenski, R.E. & Mittler, J.E. Science Vol.259 1993

There, highlighted by me, in the second sentence is a clear statement acknowledging that some mutations can be advantageous. Thank you Thurston-Howell-III for locating a peer reviewed journal article that destroys your belief in a single clause.

Note: BCP, it is not only rude, as you say, to fail to provide a source for a quotation, it is also against forum rules and constitues an act of plagiarism, potentially open to legal action, but I think the discourtesy is the more troubling.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Another way of putting it is that natural selection decreases the information content of the gene pool while random mutation replenishes it.

But the real clue for you lies in the name chosen by Darwin for the theory itself: The Theory of Evolution by Random Variation and Natural Selection. Note that it says random variation, not random mutation.

Note also that it is considered rude to post a quote without a source.

I like how you gloss over the all important crux of the statement which is “ random mutation produces genetic differences”
Shall we just pretend it wasn’t mentioned?
Now will you be issuing a correction to your assertion that no Darwinist gives credence to random mutations?

 

[Estrid]

OK, I agree There is no evidence that a copying error has ever produced a new novel body part. Now all you have to do is find a "Darwinist" who claims that it can and you will be able to refute him. Let us know how it turns out,

( and don't come back till ya do!!!)

 

[BCP1928]

I like how you gloss over the all important crux of the statement which is “ random mutation produces genetic differences”

Why should I gloss it over? It's true, after all.

Shall we just pretend it wasn’t mentioned?

You might want to; it doesn't do your argument much good.

Now will you be issuing a correction to your assertion that no Darwinist gives credence to random mutations?

I never made such an assertion. I will repeat my point, that mutations of the kind you are describing which express as monstrosities in the phenotype (the popping out of extra fingers, in your example) are a barrier to evolution.

 

[Gene2memE]

Thing is someone will win the lottery, however the chances of a single protein forming by chance is basically nil

Probability depends on how big the event space is.

If I buy a single lottery ticket, the changes of me winning are basically nil.
If everyone on the planet also buys a single lottery ticket, the chances of someone winning are high.
If everyone on the planet buys multiple lottery tickets every day, the chances of someone winning are almost certain.


Also, we already know that proteins form abiotically and without interference. Because we've discovered simple proteins sealed inside meteors.

Finally, abiogenesis has almost zero to do with the validity of the modern synthesis when it comes to evolution. We could chuck out everything we know about pre-bioitic chemistry and the impact on the theory of evolution would be absolutely tiny.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

( and don't come back till ya do!!!)

All you have is copying errors, you don’t get it do you. Why can you not comprehend it, I gave you quotes to prove it.

 

[Ophiolite]

@Thurston-howell-III , I see you are avoiding addressing my post #272 where I demonstrate that your own quote from a science journal undermines your own claims. I really think you would be best to give up while you are only behind.

 

[BCP1928]

All you have is copying errors, you don’t get it do you. Why can you not comprehend it, I gave you quotes to prove it.

There are other causes of mutations, but what is your point? So if all we have is copying errors, so what?

 

[Hans Blaster]

All you have is copying errors, you don’t get it do you. Why can you not comprehend it, I gave you quotes to prove it.

Copying errors are the raw material of natural selection. Helpful errors help the creature prosper and the gene propagate. Harmful errors can prevent reproduction or even kill. Neutral copying errors don't impact anything.