Recruiting Forum Off Topic Thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
#6,279
#6,279
T Dog said:
I cant watch any remakes they All suck. I like Seal Team and Gifted. As far as new shows on basic tv that's it. Hell's kitchen is good because I chef it up.
Click to expand...
Big fan of seal team. Was looking forward to Magnum PI and have been disappointed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T Dog
#6,280
#6,280
Question for you guys who believe in evolution:

I’m currently reading the book, “The Greatest Hoax on Earth” by Jonathan Sarfati. It is a critique of Dawkins book “the greatest show”. Anyway, in the book, Sarfati points out a major flaw of evolutions view of “bacteria to biologist” as Sarfati puts it, by simply pointing out that natural selection and mutation never add any new information. It’s never been shown that any mutation ever produces the new genetic information that would be required to change a species say, for example, a dinosaur to a bird.

I’ve heard that before of course, but being no scientist myself, how would you guys respond to that. I mean, it’s true isn’t it, that new information is never added. That being the case, how does evolution explain those changes that require would require new information?
 
#6,285
#6,285
Bassmaster_Vol said:
Question for you guys who believe in evolution:

I’m currently reading the book, “The Greatest Hoax on Earth” by Jonathan Sarfati. It is a critique of Dawkins book “the greatest show”. Anyway, in the book, Sarfati points out a major flaw of evolutions view of “bacteria to biologist” as Sarfati puts it, by simply pointing out that natural selection and mutation never add any new information. It’s never been shown that any mutation ever produces the new genetic information that would be required to change a species say, for example, a dinosaur to a bird.

I’ve heard that before of course, but being no scientist myself, how would you guys respond to that. I mean, it’s true isn’t it, that new information is never added. That being the case, how does evolution explain those changes that require would require new information?
Click to expand...
I'm no evolutionist but I can answer the question somewhat. Scientist did an experiment with mice by cutting some of their tail off. They did this for a couple of generations and eventually the tail started getting smaller with every new generation. Scientist assumed this would continue and it did.... Few a couple of generations. When the scientist stopped cutting the tail there was no more need for a shorter tail so the tail eventually went back to regular length in a shorter amount of time than it did when they were cutting the tail.
 
#6,286
#6,286
Rishvol said:
I'm no evolutionist but I can answer the question somewhat. Scientist did an experiment with mice by cutting some of their tail off. They did this for a couple of generations and eventually the tail started getting smaller with every new generation. Scientist assumed this would continue and it did.... Few a couple of generations. When the scientist stopped cutting the tail there was no more need for a shorter tail so the tail eventually went back to regular length in a shorter amount of time than it did when they were cutting the tail.
Click to expand...
I think I’m missing the point. I’m not sure how that answers the question
 
#6,287
#6,287
Bassmaster_Vol said:
I think I’m missing the point. I’m not sure how that answers the question
Click to expand...
The point is evolution is very small changes over an extremely long period of time. The changes do happen when needed (adaption), but the changes must be necessary or they won't stay. That's why genetic change is not observable because it is not needed. The only way to make these needs is through human design in a lab. Human can make an environment as close to perfect as possible to make an "evolutionary change", yet these changes are never permanent.
 
#6,288
#6,288
Rishvol said:
The point is evolution is very small changes over an extremely long period of time. The changes do happen when needed (adaption), but the changes must be necessary or they won't stay. That's why genetic change is not observable because it is not needed. The only way to make these needs is through human design in a lab. Human can make an environment as close to perfect as possible to make an "evolutionary change", yet these changes are never permanent.
Click to expand...
Okay but still, these changes aren’t the addition of new genetic information that can produce new species like Dino’s to birds. Right? I mean, the rat, even with the shorter tail, will continue to be a rat. He won’t turn into a lizard or something
 
#6,289
#6,289
Bassmaster_Vol said:
Okay but still, these changes aren’t the addition of new genetic information that can produce new species like Dino’s to birds. Right? I mean, the rat, even with the shorter tail, will continue to be a rat. He won’t turn into a lizard or something
Click to expand...
It's the "over an extremely long period of time" that evolutionist focus on. If you look at how some paleontologist look at fossils not they conclude that dinosaurs in the Cretaceous started growing feathers, and these traits stayed with the dinosaurs until their extinction.
 
#6,290
#6,290
Rishvol said:
It's the "over an extremely long period of time" that evolutionist focus on. If you look at how some paleontologist look at fossils not they conclude that dinosaurs in the Cretaceous started growing feathers, and these traits stayed with the dinosaurs until their extinction.
Click to expand...
But again, the example you mentioned doesn’t add any info. That’s what I’m after. I mean, give the rats millions of years, there’s not any new information being added to create a totally new species. For a Dino to evolve into a bird, they would have to have lots of new genetic informarion. For example, they would have to grow feathers, and the lungs are far different in a reptile than in a bird. But if mutations don’t add new information, how could this happen?
 
#6,291
#6,291
Rishvol said:
I'm no evolutionist but I can answer the question somewhat. Scientist did an experiment with mice by cutting some of their tail off. They did this for a couple of generations and eventually the tail started getting smaller with every new generation. Scientist assumed this would continue and it did.... Few a couple of generations. When the scientist stopped cutting the tail there was no more need for a shorter tail so the tail eventually went back to regular length in a shorter amount of time than it did when they were cutting the tail.
Click to expand...
I watched a show about selective breeding. They was doing it with foxes in Russia. They breed the most aggressive with the most aggressive and they turned out like you would expect, a dragon they called them, would bite your hand off. But the most gentle with the most gentle and 9 generations down they actually started looking different. Shorter fluffy tails and lighter color. Started looking like a dog really and acting like one. So my theory is with selective breeding even in humans you can get amazing results giving enough time and care. There was real giants on earth at one time. Might be an explanation I dont know. It should open anyone's mind to possibilities though. I love dogs and believe the show was how dogs came from wolves and they showed how it could work with other species as well.
 
#6,292
#6,292
Bassmaster_Vol said:
But again, the example you mentioned doesn’t add any info. That’s what I’m after. I mean, give the rats millions of years, there’s not any new information being added to create a totally new species. For a Dino to evolve into a bird, they would have to have lots of new genetic informarion. For example, they would have to grow feathers, and the lungs are far different in a reptile than in a bird. But if mutations don’t add new information, how could this happen?
Click to expand...
You missed the part where some paleontologist claim dinosaurs grew feathers during the Cretaceous. Also, another fun fact is some of the "new age" taxonomists are trying to claim birds and reptiles are the same Class.
 
#6,293
#6,293
T Dog said:
I watched a show about selective breeding. They was doing it with foxes in Russia. They breed the most aggressive with the most aggressive and they turned out like you would expect, a dragon they called them, would bite your hand off. But the most gentle with the most gentle and 9 generations down they actually started looking different. Shorter fluffy tails and lighter color. Started looking like a dog really and acting like one. So my theory is with selective breeding even in humans you can get amazing results giving enough time and care. There was real giants on earth at one time. Might be an explanation I dont know. It should open anyone's mind to possibilities though. I love dogs and believe the show was how dogs came from wolves and they showed how it could work with other species as well.
Click to expand...
Natural selection
 
#6,294
#6,294
T Dog said:
I watched a show about selective breeding. They was doing it with foxes in Russia. They breed the most aggressive with the most aggressive and they turned out like you would expect, a dragon they called them, would bite your hand off. But the most gentle with the most gentle and 9 generations down they actually started looking different. Shorter fluffy tails and lighter color. Started looking like a dog really and acting like one. So my theory is with selective breeding even in humans you can get amazing results giving enough time and care. There was real giants on earth at one time. Might be an explanation I dont know. It should open anyone's mind to possibilities though. I love dogs and believe the show was how dogs came from wolves and they showed how it could work with other species as well.
Click to expand...
But will the fox gain new genetic information to become a reptile? Or a bird? Or will they just be a different type of Fox? That’s the question. Nobody denies that natural selection happens. The question is, if these mutations do not add genetic info, where does the genetic material come from to turn bacteria into a biologist?
 
#6,295
#6,295
And we see how many different varieties of dogs there is now. And to think they all came from wolves. Eyes wide open people.
 
#6,296
#6,296
Rishvol said:
You missed the part where some paleontologist claim dinosaurs grew feathers during the Cretaceous. Also, another fun fact is some of the "new age" taxonomists are trying to claim birds and reptiles are the same Class.
Click to expand...
I’d have to look at this. But, how could they have grown feathers if mutations do not add genetic info?
 
#6,298
#6,298
T Dog said:
And we see how many different varieties of dogs there is now. And to think they all came from wolves. Eyes wide open people.
Click to expand...
That's due to selective breeding. 100% human led and it has absolutely no natural selection to it.
 
#6,300
#6,300
T Dog said:
An

Extreme change in climate could be a contributing factor as well as what is available for nutrition.
Click to expand...
But they would still have to add genetic information to create feathers. But mutations have never shown that to happen.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top