The theory of Evolution disproved in 20 questions
-
You wrote previously
"....variant codes present in the gene of tht species freom the very beginning. GOD Bless!"now you are saying
"Not all the variants existed"If not all variants existed from the begining then organism ACQUIRE new variants? If that is so then it is called MUTATIONS.
you wrote
"It seems u didnt see the clips by Dr. Kent. But these were not beneficial. The variation codes planted in the orginal gene were perfectly designed. Later mutations infact caused them 2 degrade. Natural selection , which by the way the Creation scientists thought of 1st, is a system of GOD which insures the survival of the variants of a kind whose code has not yet been compelely disrupted or damaged so tht they survive until a calculated time. This again has nothing 2 do with evolution. GOD Bless!Are MUTATIONS beneficial? Creationist fallacy is to think that MUTATIONS are beneficial to the organism. No mutations are not "beneficial" to the organism. Mutations only allows it to survive in an environment, if you take it out of this environment then it will die. So is mutations beneficial? What do you think?
You really want me to take Dr. Kent seriously? I told you he is not a scientist! He has a degree in Christian Education and believes that earth is 6000 years old. If your God-given reason tells you to take his words seriously then I can't do much about that -)
It is so hard to debate with a person who has no understanding of science...
Regards,
-
You wrote previously
"....variant codes present in the gene of tht species freom the very beginning. GOD Bless!"now you are saying
"Not all the variants existed"If not all variants existed from the begining then organism ACQUIRE new variants? If that is so then it is called MUTATIONS.
you wrote
"It seems u didnt see the clips by Dr. Kent. But these were not beneficial. The variation codes planted in the orginal gene were perfectly designed. Later mutations infact caused them 2 degrade. Natural selection , which by the way the Creation scientists thought of 1st, is a system of GOD which insures the survival of the variants of a kind whose code has not yet been compelely disrupted or damaged so tht they survive until a calculated time. This again has nothing 2 do with evolution. GOD Bless!Are MUTATIONS beneficial? Creationist fallacy is to think that MUTATIONS are beneficial to the organism. No mutations are not "beneficial" to the organism. Mutations only allows it to survive in an environment, if you take it out of this environment then it will die. So is mutations beneficial? What do you think?
You really want me to take Dr. Kent seriously? I told you he is not a scientist! He has a degree in Christian Education and believes that earth is 6000 years old. If your God-given reason tells you to take his words seriously then I can't do much about that -)
It is so hard to debate with a person who has no understanding of science...
Regards,
Khi- It's simple. In the beginning GOD created every species PERFECTLY but everything is falling apart through numerous mutations as u rightly say which r NOT beneficial but destructive. Evolution claims exactly the opposite. As far as Dr. Kent's views r concerned u shld honestly view his clips be4 u jump 2 conclusions. He explains off the carbon dating process. It is incosistent coz of the equilbrium through leakage. Carbon cld have leaked out thus making the dates invalid n this hapopened many times. Just look at those books showing carbon dating where evolutionists claimed many different dates 4 the same kind. Plz i can see now tht u didnt bother 2 look at his clips n jumped 2 conclusions very easily. GOD Bless!
-
But I have told you Sickel Cell Anaemia is not destructive and thats a mutations of the red blood cell! -)
-
Khi- Their r no beneficial mutations. Mutation only removes or damages the gene code. N yes the first DNA of its kind did contain vital genetic info tht lead 2 many different races.
Khi- Not all the variants existed. Mutations indeed do happen n nobody denies tht. It seems u didnt see the clips by Dr. Kent. But these were not beneficial. The variation codes planted in the orginal gene were perfectly designed. Later mutations infact caused them 2 degrade. Natural selection , which by the way the Creation scientists thought of 1st, is a system of GOD which insures the survival of the variants of a kind whose code has not yet been compelely disrupted or damaged so tht they survive until a calculated time. This again has nothing 2 do with evolution. GOD Bless!
Khizar, beneficial mutations do happen. I had friends who worked on bacteria, flies, fungi etc. Most of them have encountered examples of beneficial mutations at some point in their research. Do talk to scientists...
...then again, I doubt you want to learn. You have rock-solid faith in the words of creationists.
-
Khi- It's simple. In the beginning GOD created every species PERFECTLY but everything is falling apart through numerous mutations as u rightly say which r NOT beneficial but destructive. Evolution claims exactly the opposite. As far as Dr. Kent's views r concerned u shld honestly view his clips be4 u jump 2 conclusions. He explains off the carbon dating process. It is incosistent coz of the equilbrium through leakage. Carbon cld have leaked out thus making the dates invalid n this hapopened many times. Just look at those books showing carbon dating where evolutionists claimed many different dates 4 the same kind. Plz i can see now tht u didnt bother 2 look at his clips n jumped 2 conclusions very easily. GOD Bless!
Is this an indication that Khizar has now become a Young-Earth Creationist who believes that the earth is 6000 years old?
Then we could no longer help him clear his misconceptions. Very sad indeed.
-
Khizar, beneficial mutations do happen. I had friends who worked on bacteria, flies, fungi etc. Most of them have encountered examples of beneficial mutations at some point in their research. Do talk to scientists...
...then again, I doubt you want to learn. You have rock-solid faith in the words of creationists.
Khi- This is completely false. Thousands of experiments were conducted on fruit flies with random radiation, etc. None of them were benefical. All of them proved destructive n even fatal. Bacteria developed resistance 2 a certain anti biotic through mutations coz of LOSS not gain. There overall structure became inferior. For example if i cut off the hands of a thief the police wont be able 2 handcuff him. Is tht beneficial???! . Plz think be4 presenting such as a prrof 4 evolution. GOD Bless!
-
Is this an indication that Khizar has now become a Young-Earth Creationist who believes that the earth is 6000 years old?
Then we could no longer help him clear his misconceptions. Very sad indeed.
Khi- Again n again u guys dont seem 2 underatand tht I DONT ENDORSE ALL OF DR. KENT'S views but those regarding the refute of evolution n proving Creation. I wld support anybody in tbis regard be he Kent, Behe, Harun Yahya, etc n i wld refute anybody who upholds this false theory of evolution. GOD Bless!
-
Khizar, beneficial mutations do happen. I had friends who worked on bacteria, flies, fungi etc. Most of them have encountered examples of beneficial mutations at some point in their research. Do talk to scientists...
...then again, I doubt you want to learn. You have rock-solid faith in the words of creationists.
Khi- This is completely false. Thousands of experiments were conducted on fruit flies with random radiation, etc. None of them were benefical. All of them proved destructive n even fatal. Bacteria developed resistance 2 a certain anti biotic through mutations coz of LOSS not gain. There overall structure became inferior. For example if i cut off the hands of a thief the police wont be able 2 handcuff him. Is tht beneficial???! D D D . Plz think be4 presenting such as a prrof 4 evolution. GOD Bless!
False? Come on, these are real people! My friends! I talk to them and see their experiments! You don't even know anything about Drosophila experiments--among the thousands, most increased the number of variation among the fruit flies. Recently there's a Nature article reporting a mutation that can induce colour variation in fly wings.
Then again, I should expect this coming from you. It was you who said that everything, including myself, an Arabic copy of the Qur'an beside my keyboard, and the FM translation of the Message as fakes, illusions.
-
Khi- Again n again u guys dont seem 2 underatand tht I DONT ENDORSE ALL OF DR. KENT'S views but those regarding the refute of evolution n proving Creation. I wld support anybody in tbis regard be he Kent, Behe, Harun Yahya, etc n i wld refute anybody who upholds this false theory of evolution. GOD Bless!
Anyway. What's your main reason for starting the whole issue of creationism in this board in the first place? Is it just towards me and LoteTree? Because evolution was never been an issue here (as far as I know) before you came.
-
False? Come on, these are real people! My friends! I talk to them and see their experiments! You don't even know anything about Drosophila experiments--among the thousands, most increased the number of variation among the fruit flies. Recently there's a Nature article reporting a mutation that can induce colour variation in fly wings.
Khi- Again r we talking abt evolution or variation. I never disgreed on variation. varation does occur n theres no doubt abt. But this has got nothing 2 do with evolution. Color variation is not necessary beneficial. There is NO random mutation which can be beneficial or add new info into the gene. This fact has already been admitted by evolutionists themselves.
Then again, I should expect this coming from you. It was you who said that everything, including myself, an Arabic copy of the Qur'an beside my keyboard, and the FM translation of the Message as fakes, illusions.
Khi- An illusion is not necessary fake. It is liek a simulation which is shown 2 us by someone. In case of this world it is a simulation shown 2 us by GOD n has 2 be refreshed by Him at every single instant. GOD Bless!
-
Khi- Again r we talking abt evolution or variation. I never disgreed on variation. varation does occur n theres no doubt abt. But this has got nothing 2 do with evolution. Color variation is not necessary beneficial. There is NO random mutation which can be beneficial or add new info into the gene. This fact has already been admitted by evolutionists themselves.
'There is NO random mutation which can be beneficial or add new info into the gene. '
Let's talk about my example, the colour variation in wings in Drosophila flies. In a population of the species they examine, Drosophila biarmipes, there has been a mutation that alters the gene that regulates production of the pigment melanin causes mutant flies to have patterned wings.
Let me break it down so it's easy for you to follow
A population of fly with plain wings.
A mutation happens within the population.
Mutant flies inheriting this mutation exhibit patterned wings.
Their ancestors do not have the 'information' for patterned wings (none of the ancestors have patterned wings).
Ergo, 'new information'.
Comprende?
-
Let's talk about my example, the colour variation in wings in Drosophila flies. In a population of the species they examine, Drosophila biarmipes, there has been a mutation that alters the gene that regulates production of the pigment melanin causes mutant flies to have patterned wings.
Let me break it down so it's easy for you to follow
A population of fly with plain wings.
A mutation happens within the population.
Mutant flies inheriting this mutation exhibit patterned wings.
Their ancestors do not have the 'information' for patterned wings (none of the ancestors have patterned wings).
Ergo, 'new information'.
Khi- U mean there was a random mutation done on those flies which caused their wings 2 gain beneficial patterns? Or was the gene specifically targetted n manipulated? Were they just scrambled patterns of no use or were they useful? Also do u mean 2 say tht originally the production of melanin was not regular in those creatures?
Comprende?
-
Hello Andya Primanda,
you wrote
"Let's talk about my example, the colour variation in wings in Drosophila flies. In a population of the species they examine, Drosophila biarmipes, there has been a mutation that alters the gene that regulates production of the pigment melanin causes mutant flies to have patterned wings.Let me break it down so it's easy for you to follow
A population of fly with plain wings.
A mutation happens within the population.
Mutant flies inheriting this mutation exhibit patterned wings.
Their ancestors do not have the 'information' for patterned wings (none of the ancestors have patterned wings).
Ergo, 'new information'."
This is a brilliant explanation! -)
I have just browsed 19.org for Uri Geller threads submitted by Khizar and I realise now that I have wasted my time. I feel that Harun Yahyha and his followers are creating a conflict between science and religion where there should not be any. It will only damage people's faith in religion if these people continue espouse these type of non scientific nonsical beliefs...
Regards,
-
Khi- U mean there was a random mutation done on those flies which caused their wings 2 gain beneficial patterns? Or was the gene specifically targetted n manipulated? Were they just scrambled patterns of no use or were they useful? Also do u mean 2 say tht originally the production of melanin was not regular in those creatures?
The scientists don't make the mutation. They observed that a population of these flies showed melanisation (concentration of black pigments) on their wing and examined the cause--which was a mutation in the gene regulating the production of melanin.
Production of melanin in Drosophila biarmipes is normally low, hence the wild-type ('normal') wings are plain clear. The mutation seems to enhance melanin production and generate patterns.
Whether the new wing pattern is useful I don't know, but more important is that this character were not present before. As I told you, new information.
-
No reply. Okay, I guess he gets it. Good.
-
Khi- U mean there was a random mutation done on those flies which caused their wings 2 gain beneficial patterns? Or was the gene specifically targetted n manipulated? Were they just scrambled patterns of no use or were they useful? Also do u mean 2 say tht originally the production of melanin was not regular in those creatures?
The scientists don't make the mutation. They observed that a population of these flies showed melanisation (concentration of black pigments) on their wing and examined the cause--which was a mutation in the gene regulating the production of melanin.
Production of melanin in Drosophila biarmipes is normally low, hence the wild-type ('normal') wings are plain clear. The mutation seems to enhance melanin production and generate patterns.
Whether the new wing pattern is useful I don't know, but more important is that this character were not present before. As I told you, new information.
Khi- A similar phenomena was n oticed in the enhancement of a mouse's brain where the Beta cad gene was manipulated so tht more cells circulated cozing the brain in th mouse 2 enlarge. Did u see the debate btw Kent n Mathew Rainbow i posted? The answer is tht this is just scrambling EXISTING informmstion n by no means adding any new info. He tried 2 proof eveolution by this but it turned out 2 be nothing of this sort. The brrain although bigger did not increase in complexity. GOD Bless!
-
Those who reject the theory of evolution in the name of God are reacting to the unwarranted inferences and speculations made by atheists. But, while they are reacting to those inferences and speculations, they reject many facts proving mutations and the principle of the survival of the fittest.
Though I read many books and articles for and against evolution and took a graduate philosophy class solely on evolution, I do not claim to be expert on the topic. However, I found many of the knee-jerk rejectors of the theory lacking a rudimentary understanding of the issue they are criticizing.
As for the Quran, evolution is supported by several verses of the Quran. Adam was the "khalifa" (successor) of violant primates. Evolution is a divinely designed and controlled the assembly line of creation. To me, a Big Bang, or the incredible structure of a single atom is more than sufficient as proof for God.
Peace,
Edip -
Those who reject the theory of evolution in the name of God are reacting to the unwarranted inferences and speculations made by atheists. But, while they are reacting to those inferences and speculations, they reject many facts proving mutations and the principle of the survival of the fittest.
Khi- Salam bro Edip. Bro 1st id like u 2 define wht u mean by evolution 4 this word has been used 4 at least six different categories cosmic evolution, organic evolution, macro evolution, micro evolution 2 name four of them. The 1st three, in fact all five, except micro evolution r pure fiction n speculations with no empirical evidence whtsoever. Wht u r talking abt is probably micro evolution better termed as variation WITHIN THE KIND. It takes a major leap in logic 2 conclude tht micro proofs macro n thts wht the debate btw Creationists n Evolitionists is all abt. They both agree on micro evolution. I hope u dont believe we evoleved from the apes. The impossibility of this has also been pted out well by RK.
Though I read many books and articles for and against evolution and took a graduate philosophy class solely on evolution, I do not claim to be expert on the topic. However, I found many of the knee-jerk rejectors of the theory lacking a rudimentary understanding of the issue they are criticizing.
Khi- Maybe u shld watch the debate btw Dr. Mathew Rainbow n Kent Hovind at
http//www.drdino.com/Downloads/Debate/vids/index.jsp
Tape #2
Of all the debates i heard i can say tht this is probably the only evolutionist who is honest enough 2 admit tht archeoterix is not a dino bird but a 100% bird, a perching bird. This dino bird lie is yet found in many scientific text books in the schools.As for the Quran, evolution is supported by several verses of the Quran. Adam was the "khalifa" (successor) of violant primates. Evolution is a divinely designed and controlled the assembly line of creation. To me, a Big Bang, or the incredible structure of a single atom is more than sufficient as proof for God.
Peace,
EdipKhi- It seems u believe tht Adam evolved from ape like creatures. This is absurd n against the Quranic verse which says tht GOD cerated mankind with HIS OWN TWO HANDS
He said, "O Satan, what prevented you from prostrating before what I created with MY HANDS? Are you too arrogant? Have you rebelled?"
GOD leaves nothing upto chance. It wld be wasteful n injust 2 do so. N nobody wants 2 worship such a god. On the contrary GOD made everything perfect n it is actually with time tht every thing decays. Yes, we r devolving not evolving. The 2nd law of thermodynamics can be seen all over the universe. When we look at the early humans we see tht they were much taller helthier n stronger than us. Look for example at the mummy of Pharaoh. Ppl in the past lived many hundreds of years. In fact the niandertaler is not an ape-human. NO, it is exactly wht man wld look at very old age n this is definitely more plausible. GOD also states in the Quran tht there were many more powerful generations whom He destroyed
Many a generation before them, who were more powerful, we annihilated. They searched the land; did they find an escape?
We r becoming worse day by day as the 2nd law of thermodynamics says n we r in a closed system according 2 the big bang.
Stars r burning up, no new stars r forming. Again this has NEVER been proved. There is absolutely no evidence of star formation currently taking place. All this is based on mere speculation. For example it is said tht when we look we see a star becoming brighter. However this is more probably coz of the cosmic dust clearing n not coz of the formation of new stars. Evolution is not seen anywhere. It is just a hypothesis, a hypothesis tht has been disproved continuously n will continue 2 be , GW. GOD Bless! -
Khi- A similar phenomena was n oticed in the enhancement of a mouse's brain where the Beta cad gene was manipulated so tht more cells circulated cozing the brain in th mouse 2 enlarge. Did u see the debate btw Kent n Mathew Rainbow i posted? The answer is tht this is just scrambling EXISTING informmstion n by no means adding any new info. He tried 2 proof eveolution by this but it turned out 2 be nothing of this sort. The brrain although bigger did not increase in complexity. GOD Bless!
If it was just scrambling existing information, then how come the wing patterns never turned up before?
-
If it was just scrambling existing information, then how come the wing patterns never turned up before?
Khi- How come the big brain never turned up in mice be4 naturally? Its simple coz in the lab specific genes were targeted i.e. human intelligence was involved. Yet this did not increase the genetic info but only scrambled it in a different way as it wld be naturally. GOD Bless!