Conversation with a Pastor

Once again you have no clue what you are talking about. Obviously if the genetic code contained only information for brown eyes, and one day there was a mutation that created "Blue eyes" information was increased.

What happens through mutation is that information changes. This is what evolution is.

What is a joke is you now admitting that mutations happen (which is evolution) and then denying evolution in the same breath.

You are on the ropes professor. Time to throw in the towel. To continue further is masochism.

 

The other articles in the publication in the link provided are not "sub topics". They are different articles on different subjects written by different authors.

There is nothing in those other articles which disprove what Victor is saying. The other Authors are talking about different subjects.

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/babylonbaghdad.pdf

What a horrible attempt to try and cover up your reading comprehension errors and divert the topic because you can not handle the reality of modern scholarship.

Your attempts to cherry pick and mischaracterize the article have failed and all you can do is demonize the messenger.

The link has 4 articles. As shown in the table of contents on Page 1.

These 4 articles cover completely different topics.

1) Hurowitz "The Genesis of Genesis" The introduction (Page 2) gives a brief summery of the contents of Each article.

You were citing passages from the Hurowitz article written by Hurowitz and claiming those passages were bashing Hurowitz's comments.

Now that I have schooled you on your error you are trying to backtrack and say that it was the Authors of the other articles that disproved Hurowitz.

This claim is equally absurd because the other articles are not discussing Enuma Elis and its relationship to Genesis. The other articles are not discussing any aspects of what Hurowitz coverer.

The other articles/Authors are not talking about Hurowitz so your "unsupported claim" that these other Authors somehow disprove Hurowitz is ridiculously absurd.

The second article:

The third article: "Europe Confronts Assyrian Art"

The fourth article:

You have been "BUSTED" and your claims: 1) The articles in the link are on the same Biblical topic and 2) The other Authors "refute the babblings of Hurowitz" have been shown false.

You are out of material and are desperately trying to hide from the fact that your argument was a sham and that modern scholarship, while disagreeing on the degree to which Genesis borrowed from Enuma Elish, agrees that the Authors of Genesis drew upon near east sources such as Enuma Elish, and others (such as Ugarit).

These are not my interpretations but that of modern scholarship. Another lame attempt at mischaracterizations and diversion on your part. Seems this is all you have left.

I realize that you are not interested in anything that conflicts with your made up beliefs.

 

What's so beneficial about blue colored eyes? As far as I can tell, people with light-colored eyes are more prone to macular degeneration in the eyes (a disease).
Source: https://www.enhancedvision.com/low-v...eneration.html

Also, it is caucasian men who are more prone to being color blind than any other race in the world.
Source: http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatri...diatrics/45100

So, I really don't see the benefit in such a mutation. Whatever the case may be, that mutation has been added into the DNA genepool within caucasians of European descent. It's much like a poodle. Poodles look cute, but the number of genetic mutations they've acquired has made them prone to a large multitude of genetic health problems
Source: http://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/hea...rdpoodles.html

 

You're using elementary school logic, and I'm not really interested in debating with it. All you're throwing at me right now are emotions without any logical coherence to them. No matter how hard I try to explain things to you, you either ignore it, distort your own opinions or distort mine.

You cannot be reasoned with. I'm more than willing to be proven wrong, but the evidence of what you're trying to claim simply isn't there. So, I'm pretty much done here.

 

You were DONE the moment you posted that a Human Fetus did not have a YOLK SAC and you were DONE the moment you started talking about the COCCYX as if you knew anything about people who have both ACTUAL HUMAN TAILS and Vestigial structures.

What's the difference between atavisms and vestigial structures? They're actually pretty close. Vestigial structures are body parts that survive as degenerate, imperfect versions of what they should be. Think of the ostrich: It has wings, but it can't fly. Ostriches use their wings for other purposes, like balance, but their wings can't function as wings. Their wings are vestigial -- they're used for a purpose, but not the purpose for which they may have originally served.

Atavisms are traits of distant ancestors that reappear in the modern day. In order for the trait to be an atavism, an organism's parents can't have the trait, and neither can recent ancestors. The atavism you've probably heard of most often? The human tail. It's not just a gag to pull in a Farrelly brothers movie -- it really happens. There are two kinds of human tails, however: the pseudo-tail and the much rarer, true human tail. The pseudo-tail doesn't have any bones or cartilage -- it's skin and fat. But the true human tail has nerves and muscles and sometimes even cartilage or vertebrae, although there seems to be some scientific debate about this last point. All vertebrates have the ability to make a tail, and guess what? Humans are vertebrates. Way back when, maybe we all had tails, and they provided some important function for us, perhaps to help us balance.Some other traits that could possibly be human atavisms are webbed fingers and toes, extra fingers and toes, hiccups and large canines

Do me...the Mods and the Membership a FAVOR!!!!

If you want to argue a point or debate AT LEAST KNOW WHAT THE F@#% YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE YOU DO!!!!!

In this case I am wasting time talking to a person who has absolutely ZERO EDUCATION specific to the topic they are arguing and after awhile I GET TIRED OF IT!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Insertion mutations where extra or new genetic material is added to a DNA sequence.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/insertion-mutation-diseases-examples-quiz.html

 

Really? LOL!!!

Google Sagittarius A*......the Supermassive Black Hole at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy with the Garitational Effect of 3 Million Solar Masses which with the help of Dark Matter all the stars and their planets orbit in our Spiral Galaxy.

Or here is a Black Hole that is well defined by it's accretion disc and surrounding stars.....NGC 4261 at a distance of 100 Million Light Years from Earth.

Quantum Evolution is happening all around us.....as Stars fuse Hydrogen into Helium and all lighter elements up to Iron and then from Iron up heavier all Elements are generated by Super Nova.

You should first educate yourself to certain easy to prove realities before spouting off they don't exist.

AboveAlpha

 

Again....you are talking about something you have absolutely no education in or knowledge about.

It get's OLD real quick!

AboveAlpha

 

Quit posting like a kindygardner. OMG.

 

Whether or not a particular mutation is objectively "beneficial" is irrelevant. It still happened; blue eyes exist. And natural selection occurs in large part due to certain traits being more conducive to producing offspring. Being "cute like a poodle" can get you laid, and that's what it's all about, evolutionally speaking. Of course, if there was some intelligence controlling it all to make traits objectively beneficial, then traits like blue eyes would make less sense, so you have just produced an argument against intelligent design and for evolution.

 

There is only ONE POSSIBILITY that does not have a Probability greater than 1 in 10^150th as at that level it becomes a STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.....that there existed INTELLIGENT DESIGN and certainly not in the manner those idiotic Intelligent Design text books which were BANNED even by the Vatican and all other Christian Sects as NONSENSE.

This would be that a possible existing GOD...and the word GOD could not be specifically defined....used the processes of Quantum and Biological Evolution to generate the Universe, Muliverse and all things including LIFE within them.

What most people cannot Fathom is that NON-EXISTENCE IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!

How do we know this....because I am typing this right now.

Most people....the vast majority....do not understand just how CLOSE the Non-Living Inanimate is to the Living Animate.

A VIRUS has DNA but a Virus is NOT ALIVE.

The Virus existed on Earth BEFORE Life Existed as all a Virus is really is a Long Chain DNA MOLECULE.

LIFE....or the very first Single Celled Organism wich reproduced via Mitosis....Cell Splitting and unraveling of the Chromosones into 2 sets for two cells from one.....at a point was INFECTED BY THE VERY FIRST VIRUS.

A Living Cell takes a Virus into it's Cellular Membrane as the Virus disguises itself as Food or O2.

Once inside the Living Cell the Viral DNA ENCODES ITSELF INTO THE LIVING CELLS GENOME.

Basically the Virus REPROGRAMS THE LIVING CELLS GENOME TO USE THE LIVING CELLS OWN RAW MATERIAL TO MAKE VIRUSES...LOTS OF THEM.....so many that at a point so much raw material of the Living Cell has been used to make Viruses that the Cellular Membrane is so weak it ruptures under Great Pressure and the Cell EXPLODES shooting out the newly created Viruses which helps spread the Viruses to other Living Cells.

The Living Cells that were just about ready to split when they were infected were able to survive as they split one cell died and the other survived and the surviving cells had within them the VERY FIRST ORIGINAL VIRAL DNA ENCODING INTO THEIR GENOME.

When we finally finished mapping the entire Human Genome and then compared our Genomes to the thousands upon thousands of other species Genomes we had already mapped we found ONE GLARING REALITY!!!

Although over a Billion plus years many species had Millions of Viral DNA encodings that some were the same in different species.....ONLY ONE ANCIENT VIRAL DNA ENCODING EXISTED IN ALL LIVING THINGS GENOMES THAT WAS THE SAME....JUST ONE!!!

It existed in Plants, Animals, Bacteria, Humans....everything living.

This is PROOD POSITIVE 100%.....that ALL LIFE ON EARTH EVOLVE FROM AN ORIGINAL GROUP OF SINGLE CELLED ORGANISMS THAT WERE INFECTED BY A VIRUS AND THAT THIS VIRUS DNA ENCODING EXISTS IN EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING ON EARTH INCLUDING HUMANS AND THE......ONLY WAY THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED IS IF ALL LIFE SHARED A COMMON ANCESTOR THAT ALL LIFE EVOLVED FROM!!!

Because ONLY ONE Ancient Viral DNA Encoding out of MILLIONS exists in EVERY SINGLE LIFE FORM ON EARTH!!!

This is why EVOLUTION is no longer called a THEORY but a FACT!!!

AboveAlpha

 

OK, I'm only going to respond to this part, as the rest is really a separate issue. First, I must say that I am surprised that you would use "statistical impossibility" in this context. Why am I surprised? Because you are a believer in the multiverse. Whereas, in the case of "our" universe, one can calculate that there are only so many million billion atoms, and they have only had so many billions of years to do stuff, in the case of the multiverse, both of those things (stuff and time) are INFINITE. So something with a 1 in 10^150th is not a statistical impossibility, it is a CERTAINTY. In fact, a funny thing about infinity is that 1 in 10^150th occurrences would happen an infinite number of times!

Secondly, if the word God can't be specifically defined, then it means nothing. It seems to be a conflation of nature with the divine through fuzzy terminology.

 

I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say.....ANYTHING THAT CAN HAPPEN WILL HAPPEN...Murphy's Law.

HOWEVER.....I worked on the MULTIVERSAL MODELS....not the old MANY WORLDS MODELS.

There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE.

In the Multiversal Model.....unlike the Many Worlds Model.....there are in the Multiversal Model INFINITE NUMBERS OF BASELINE UNIVERSAL REALITIES or GROUPINGS.....and our Universe belongs in one of these Groupings as each Grouping has an Infinite Number of Divergent Universal Realities all with the exact same Natural Universal Physical Laws.

But this is but just ONE BASELINE UNIVERSAL REALITY GROUPING.

In Multiversal Models there is also INFINITE IN NUMBER ALTERNATE BASELINE UNIVERSAL GROUPING REALITIES and each Baseline Universal Grouping HAS IT'S OWN SET OF NATURAL PHYSICAL LAWS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT OR PERHAPS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.....BUT DIFFERENT than our own Baseline Universal Grouping.

Are you follwing me so far......?

AboveAlpha...continued...

 

Right, an infinite number of infinites.

 

Anyways.....Many Worlds Models only took into consideration a Multitude of Divergent Universal Realities but each one like ours but just with different outcomes and different versions of things and ourselves......we came to understand that......THIS WAS TOO LIMITED A CONCEPT TO ACCOUNT FOR QUANTUM MECHANICS.

Not only would there Infinite Versions of our Universe....there would also have to be Infinite Versions of other Baseline Universal Groupings.

I described it like this.

The MULTIVERSE is like an Infinite Forest.

Each Tree represents a Baseline Universal Grouping or Reality.

Each Tree and there are INFINITE NUMBERS OF TREES......also have upon them INFINITE IN NUMBER BRANCHES.

Each BRANCH....represents a Universe unto itself that is slightly different and divergent from all the other infinite in number branches each representing another Universe that is part of that Tree or Baseline Universal Reality Grouping.

The thing is that Each Tree or Baseline Universal Grouping since they have a completely different set of Natural Physical Universal Laws the Branches of one Tree cannot interact with the Branches of another Tree as each Tree and it's Branches....ie...Each Baseline Universal Reality Grouping and all it's Infinite in number Divergent Universal States of Reality.....is not compatable with the different Physical Laws of another Tree or Universal Grouping.

Still with me?

AboveAlpha

 

Okay...

 

OK.....since there are an Infinite Number of Trees each which represent Baseline Universal Groupings that cannot interact with each other.....as each have completely different incompatable Universal Laws and Space-Time or perhaps Constructs within these Baseline Realities so different that anything Human's can understand we would have no frame of reference for understanding.

This means that WITHIN OUR UNIVERSE.....and within OUR BASELINE UNIVERSAL GROUPINGS.....even though Murphy's Law tells us anything that can happen will happen.....the KEY WORD IS CAN!!!

When we look at our Universe with it's Physical Laws there are certain things that CAN HAPPEN and certain things that CANNOT HAPEN.

This does not mean that in a DIFFERENT TREE...ie....another Baseline Universal Grouping that what cannot happen here also cannot happen there because it can as the system is infinite.

AboveAlpha

 

I was making the point that your post supports Giftdones post. However, due to my busy weekend, Giftdone has made the point already.

 

If mutations remove information how do you get 'throwbacks' several generations later.

 

Have a source for this claim?

 

What are you talking about? I was talking to Cameron, and not you.

 

I wouldn't consider mutation insertions new data since they add a completely random nucleotide into a sequence. This could lead to cancer and other diseases. If you consider cancer an evolutionary benefit, then hey, maybe you're right!

 

Ahhhh moving the goal posts again I see. Who said all mutations are beneficial? The argument is insertion mutations add genic data.

Your previous assertions stated that mutations never add genetic data. Isn't that what you said, or are going to lie once again?

 

I said "new information". I didn't say "new genetic data" which could be made using old genetic data. Besides, the new information would need to be beneficial to the host, otherwise it'll just be cancerous. However, if you're including cancerous mutations, then sure. You're 100% right.

 

OK then,, define 'new information' as opposed to 'new genetic data'. Ball's in your court.




The red "T' in the diagram is new data .